Social Question

seawulf575's avatar

Why didn't Trump just spy on Biden?

Asked by seawulf575 (8920points) 2 weeks ago

Trump is accused by a whistleblower of trying to pressure the Ukrainian president into opening an investigation into Biden’s son. Since many seem to think that spying on a presidential candidate to get evidence on an old crime is justified, why didn’t Trump just sick our intelligence community on Biden?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

93 Answers

Irukandji's avatar

“many seem to think that spying on a presidential candidate to get evidence on an old crime is justified”

[Citation needed]

stanleybmanly's avatar

To begin with, the fool has come through bitter experience to understand that he cannot depend on the intelligence networks for reliable facilitation of his gangster undertakings. It apparently came as a shock to the dummy that this might be the case, so he arrived through sheer mobland imitation at the ideal solution of appointing an enforcer in the vein of Frank Nitti to front the network and dampen its effectiveness at resistance to his signature proclivity toward malfeasance and corruption. It is truly incredible that at this late stage in the idiot’s evolution, he has yet to understand that virtually transparent sleazy behavior must quickly turn to bite him on his puffy stupid ass, but there you have it.

flutherother's avatar

I don’t trust Trump and I don’t discount the allegation that he promised US military support to the Ukraine in return for an investigation into a political rival. To Trump, who has no discernible integrity, this would simply be another “deal” and a means to improve his chance of re-election.

Trump can’t just “spy on Biden” as the president of the United States does not have the authority to unilaterally order the wiretapping of an American citizen. This is a good thing as it offers some protection to all of us should some unscrupulous individual be elected president.

seawulf575's avatar

@Irukandji This question was in response to another thread where our liberal jellies were trying to tell me that spying on a political campaign of the opposing party was justified since they (the intelligence communities) wanted to try to dig up proof of old wrongdoings by Manafort, Page, and others. Opening a normal investigation to gather the data of a wrong they thought they knew about wasn’t the right course.

https://www.fluther.com/216378/do-conservatives-not-think-there-is-any-problem-with-the-environment/

This question was asked to gauge if they really believe it or not. Or if they are just trying to justify trying to get dirt on Trump By Any Means Necessary.

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother The conversation has a transcript Trump knew it was getting recorded…why would he purposely go out of his way to break a law when he knew there would have proof he did it? I suspect Trump is waiting for the Dems to make an even bigger deal out of this before he gives up the transcript OR it is being evaluated even now to see if there is any sensitive material in it. OR he is waiting for the actual whistleblower investigation to do the job it is supposed to do.
As for the POTUS not being able to just spy on an opposing candidate, I agree…it isn’t supposed to be allowed. That is why I, for one, am so alarmed that Trump’s campaign was spied on. The excuse I have gotten is that the spying was done to get the evidence of wrongdoing by Manafort and others that the intelligence communities “knew” had already been committed. The wiretapping and the use of the intelligence communities to do it against an opposing political campaign can only be done with the approval of the POTUS.

Yellowdog's avatar

Joe Biden’s crime was withholding a billion dollars in aid to the Ukraine Gov’t if they did not stop investigating his son for some pretty high crimes and corruption in the Ukraine. When Ukraine challenged him this and told Joe he wasn’t the president, he said, “Call him…”

So, an investigation by the Ukraine was already well underway when the Obama / Biden campaign stopped it.

A bigger question would be, why isn’t The Hague or some other international court involved in this? Granted, the U.S. can do whatever it wants in aid, but this is extortion.

Why aren’t both Obama and Biden in prison for this?

Why is Biden on so many news programs bragging about this like a senile old drunk?

Ukraine and the U.S. need to pursue this and bring at least Joe Biden to justice. And whatever his son was being investigated for needs to be pursued as well. Do not any of you realize how bad this looks for U.S. Government officials to be involved in this level of extortion?

stanleybmanly's avatar

So it’s Biden and Obama who are the criminals in this matter? THEY are the pair responsible for the toppling of the laws and destroying the credibility of this country? That is your take on your this?

jca2's avatar

Obama. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly I’m going to give you the answer you give me every time the left comes up with some concocted bullshit and I tell you it is concocted bullshit: If they did nothing wrong then there should be nothing wrong with investigating. If they did nothing the investigation will prove that. If they did break the law and used their offices to cover it up, then the investigation will show that as well and justice can be served.

Yellowdog's avatar

@stanleybmanly Joe Biden has bragged about this dozens of times since it happened, and I am surprised no conservatives are even bringing it up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

This is what the Ukraine has been trying to get the U.S. to re-open, and the purpose of uydy Giuliani’s visit to the Ukraine.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Alright you 2. We shall see how this plays out. But if you truly believe the nonstop controversy surrounding this idiot the diabolical invention of the left, the press, intelligence services, the courts, undocumented immigrants, the weather service, the gay lobby, black lives matter, academics, the scientific community—we’re simply all out to nail this colossal fuckup—good luck with that.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly I have challenged you numerous times on all of those things. I have presented the facts and asked you to debate them. You refuse. So just admit that most of your examples are nothing more than constructs of the left and move on. You want to hate someone because of lies someone tells you, have at it….but own it.

SEKA's avatar

Could it possibly be because he’s an idiot whose ego needs to be in control of every aspect? It’s the the thrill of the chase. There’s also a theory floating around that he’s helping Putin destroy the Ukraine. No matter what he says he didn’t care that somebody was listening because he has more power than they have and he feels that he’s too powerful to be taken down

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 You have challenged me numerous times because EVERY DAY there is a new scandal around the fool. “Constructs of the left” is a goofball explanation for the phenomena. It is as ludicrous as the idea that the press, intelligence, services, courts, sciences, weather services—all leftists in league with the democrats to slander and malign the fool! The proposition is as insulting to common sense as the fool himself, and so embarrassingly absurd that I fail to understand how you can persist in it with a straight face. The man is an unmitigated fuckup. That is the SINGLE fact I give you in reply to anything you care to present. Your task of defending this knucklehead is hopeless. What’s the next scandal tomorrow or this afternoon? How could the Democrats possibly be this creative? Who could have the imagination to dream up the actuality to match this stupendous malformity of a man?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly You are predictable if nothing else. You STILL won’t actually deal with facts. It has already been shown that the FBI used the Steele Dossier as a basis for FISA warrants, that they failed to mention to the FISC that it was bought and paid for opposition research, that Comey knew it was unverified and likely not true before he used it, and that he used it anyway to get wiretaps and other spying efforts in place on the Trump campaign. And you won’t even try to actually come up with facts that dispute any of this. All you do is act like to even bring things like this up is foolishness. But the facts are piling up and your excuses are wearing out. Eventually you will either have to put up or shut up. And the same goes for every other “scandal” you attribute to Trump. Even this latest…the “whistleblower” claim. Did you see that the “whistleblower” didn’t even have first hand knowledge of the conversation? He heard it through the grapevine. Hearsay evidence at best. But it is all Trump. Again…time is getting short and your credibility is gone.

seawulf575's avatar

@SEKA No, that makes no sense either. If he is an egomaniac control freak, he would do everything he could to win. Being stupid and setting himself up does not fall into that persona. And there you go again: “There’s also a theory floating around…” This is exactly what I have told @stanleybmanly about. Every “scandal” comes back to something like that. Someone supposes something or throws out innuendo with no proof whatsoever and you fools on the left go running with it. Pick a “scandal”. It all comes back somewhere to someone on the left creating it. The only way they gain any traction at all is through the assistance of the liberal media with no journalistic integrity at all. But we waste tons of time and money showing how fake they really are. And even then, there are many tools that refuse to admit it was fake. Take Russia Collusion for instance. Two years and about $35M to find out that it was all made up…that Trump had nothing to do with any Russian interference at all. Yet how many on the left cannot let it go? They still accuse him of colluding to steal the election. Hillary just did it the other day as a matter of fact.
Stop being part of the problem.

SEKA's avatar

I’ve not been here very long, but I think stanley will shut up when you do

seawulf575's avatar

Nah… @stanleybmanly will not shut up…period. I’ve seen too many threads that prove this out. As for me, I go through phases. Some days I let him rant on because I know he is a fool. Other days I just don’t feel like letting his fantasy boil over without challenge

stanleybmanly's avatar

There is only one phase for you— that of obstinate vituperative dummy, and you are welcome to it. YOU are exactly the character worthy of defending a man with the ethics of sewage and endowed with an intellect to parallel your own. You deserve one another

Dutchess_III's avatar

There are people who think spying is justified? I agree. You need to back that claim up with something.
Have you forgotten Watergate already?

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III look at my very first response. The claim is there. In fact it was @squeeky2 that claimed it was justified and it was you that ridiculed the idea that we would find it a corrupt act.

Dutchess_III's avatar

What does climate change have to do with spying? If there is actually something in that climate thread that deals with spying, please copy and paste the actual “quips.” I have no desire to read that entire post looking for a comment that isn’t even there.

To copy a quip, hover your mouse to the right the “Flag as…” An orange paragraph icon will show up. Right click, copy.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III spying doesn’t have anything to do with environment, but that is where the conversation went. Here is the quote from Squeeky2

“Oh come on! They were so called spied on because of suspected illegal activities not because they were part of the Trump campaign and YOU know it but if it makes you feel good to spin it go ahead.
By they didn’t those wonderful people face charges,and Manafort convicted?”

And your response a few lines later was:

“Evidence came to light that Hillary is responsible for Lincoln’s murder. IT’S TRUE!!!”

Odd that you don’t remember your own snark.

Dutchess_III's avatar

And you read into SQUEEKY’S post that he was condoning the spying? That’s absurd.

And my silly comment had nothing to do with anything. It was just a throw away comment. If you somehow took it seriously then that’s absurd too.

seawulf575's avatar

If you read the entire exchange (which I am not going to recreate here), yes, Squeeky was justifying that spying on a political candidate was not only okay, but was warranted as well. And you were being snarky, as usual, but you were supporting his attempts at deflecting the idea that the Dems might have done serious wrong by supporting the spying.

MrGrimm888's avatar

My understanding of the situation, is that Trump.was threatening to deny $250 milllion, in military aid, to the Ukraine, unless they provided dirt, on Biden. These were articles that I read, from CNN, NPR, the Washington post, and other sources.

Couple that, with Trump’s public declaration of of asking Russia to provide dirt on Hillary, and you have a great case, for Trump abusing his political role, to help his campaign.

That’s a clear abuse, of his power. And, grounds for impeachment. If the Ukrainian scenario, is true, Trump should be impeached. Obviously, that doesn’t mean that he will be removed from office. But. Trump was essentially blackmailing the Ukraine, to get dirt on a potential political foe.

It seems that Trump should be impeached. Or. The US, is basically giving Trump the ability to go beyond his power.

Pelosi, is reluctant to impeach Trump. But this is forcing her, to consider it. I think the dems, don’t want to impeach Trump, because it could backfire, and give Trump ammunition, that he is being a victim, of a conspiracy. Which would only galvanize his base.

The dems, are now stuck. Should they pursue what the law says they should, or should they hope that the American people will ultimately decide, that Trump is not POTUS material, in the 2020 elections.

The dems, are not good at going after Trump. Nor, do they have a plan, for 2020.

Like it ,or not, Trump has claimed that he is above the law, as a sitting POTUS. I find it interesting that the conservatives, who want less per for the executive branch, to back him, on these stunts. They seem content, to let Trump be the most powerful form, and closest to a dictatorship, than any other POTUS. The only feasible inference, is that they will concede ALL of their stated values, to let Trump do his thing. The Republican supporters, are clearly OK, with sacrificing the majority of what they claim to stand for, in order to see the administration’s agenda continued. A all white/Christian country, is more important to them, than their declarations, or beliefs…

With every passing day. Trumpers, show that they really want nothing more than capitalism, and white privileges, over anything else…..

Yellowdog's avatar

Your sources are lying, @MrGrimm888

Since last April, The Hill has been reporting on this story, as I outlined above. Joe Biden, when he was vice president, denied Ukraine a Billion the U.S. aid money because they were investigating his son for criminal activity involving a Natural Gas firm, Joe Biden got the investigation into his son stopped by committing a plain and wide-open act of extortion.

The Ukraine has been trying to get this information to us for several years, and no one in the U.S. has picked up the baton until a couple of months ago. Justice is coming, and not because of Trump.

Joe Biden has bragged about this at least four or five times since April.

So, why would Trump be hostile towards the Ukraine? They want us to take action against Biden and his son.

Also, Trump did not seek Russian research against Hillary—it was the other way around. The Christopher Steele dossier was Russian disinformation. A Russian source that split our country beyond recovery. The U.S. will never be the same because of that dossier, that dirty Russian dossier, foisted on us by the DNC and Hillary Clinton, propagated by your media.

Justice will take its course. So far, nothing real on Trump, but plenty being investigated against various Obama-administration intel.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Yellowdog Since when is VP able to deny foreign funding?

Your hero can do anything to anybody or so he thinks.

~~~~He’s probably spying on you !

stanleybmanly's avatar

The idea that the Steele dossier has inflicted damage on this country exceeding the detriment at the hands of the fool is beyond laughable.

Yellowdog's avatar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

When the Ukraine called foul, that Biden couldn’t deny funding, that only Obama could, Biden said, “call him:.

Click on the link and see biden bragging about this,

flutherother's avatar

It wasn’t only Biden who wanted Viktor Shokin removed. Several western governments and financiers of Ukraine’s government also wanted him dismissed as he was seen as a barrier to anti-corruption efforts. It doesn’t make sense that Biden would brag about getting Shokin removed in order to protect his son. If that was his motive he would have kept quiet about it.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 I have all sorts of pop-up blockers and ad blockers up. The NYT links don’t work for me. But let me guess…there isn’t a single thing in there that actually says a crime has been committed. It can’t because (a) the whistleblower statement has not been released yet and (b) the investigation has not been conducted. All any “news” outlet or politician can offer is innuendo and supposition. a whole bunch of “what if”. There will be many statements in there that sound amazingly like: “It’s possible that…” or “If true…” or “it could likely…”. Those aren’t factual statements. They are innuendo and supposition.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@seawulf575The NYT links don’t work for me” You’re just being paranoid. It’s not you personally. They only let you get a glimpse of the article before they block it because they want you to subscribe and pay $$ every month.
But I was able to copy the article before it blocked me.

“As Trump Confirms He Discussed Biden With Ukraine, Pressure to Impeach Builds
Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned of a “new chapter of lawlessness” and a turning point in the House investigation of President Trump.
Image
“The administration is endangering our national security and having a chilling effect on any future whistle-blower who sees wrongdoing,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in a letter on Sunday.CreditCreditErin Schaff/The New York Times
By Nicholas Fandos, Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman
• Published Sept. 22, 2019Updated Sept. 23, 2019, 2:27 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON — President Trump acknowledged on Sunday that he raised corruption accusations against former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. during a phone call with Ukraine’s leader, a stunning admission as pressure mounted on Democrats to impeach Mr. Trump over allegations he leaned on a foreign government to help damage a political rival.
In public and in private, many Democrats said the evidence that has emerged in recent days indicating that Mr. Trump pushed the Ukrainian government to investigate Mr. Biden, and his administration’s stonewalling of attempts by Congress to learn more, were changing their calculations about whether to charge him with articles of impeachment.
The influential chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who has resisted such action, said the House might now have “crossed the Rubicon” in light of the new disclosures, and the administration’s withholding of a related whistle-blower complaint. A group of moderate freshman lawmakers who had been opposed to an impeachment inquiry said they were considering changing course, while other Democrats who had reluctantly supported one amplified their calls. Progressives, meanwhile, sharpened their criticisms of the party’s leadership for failing to act.
The fast-moving developments prompted Speaker Nancy Pelosi to level a warning of her own to the White House: Turn over the secret whistle-blower complaint by Thursday, or face a serious escalation from Congress.
Advertisement
In a letter to House Democrats, Ms. Pelosi never mentioned the word “impeachment,” but her message hinted at that possibility.
“If the administration persists in blocking this whistle-blower from disclosing to Congress a serious possible breach of constitutional duties by the president, they will be entering a grave new chapter of lawlessness which will take us into a whole new stage of investigation,” Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, wrote in the letter.
Read the Letter Nancy Pelosi Sent About the Whistle-Blower Complaint
The House speaker warned of a new phase in the investigation of President Trump if he refuses to hand over the whistle-blower complaint.
1 page, 0.11 MB
The allegations center on whether Mr. Trump pressured Ukraine’s newly elected leader, implicitly or explicitly, to take action to hurt Mr. Biden’s election bid at a vulnerable moment for the former Soviet republic, possibly using United States military aid as leverage. Ukraine has been fighting Russian-backed separatists, and the Trump administration had temporarily been withholding a $250 million package of military funding. There have been no indications to this point, however, that Mr. Trump mentioned the aid money on the call.
Mr. Trump showed no sign of contrition on Sunday, telling aides that Democrats were overplaying their hand on a matter voters would dismiss. Publicly, he worked to focus attention not on his own actions but on Mr. Biden’s.
Advertisement
Speaking to reporters, the president defended his July phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine as entirely appropriate, and stopped short of directly confirming news reports about what was discussed. But he acknowledged that he had discussed Mr. Biden during the call and accused the former vice president of corruption tied to his son Hunter’s business activities in the former Soviet republic.
“The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, with largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place and largely the fact that we don’t want our people like Vice President Biden and his son creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine,” Mr. Trump told reporters before leaving for a trip to Texas and Ohio.
It is still far from clear that the latest scandal surrounding Mr. Trump’s conduct will lead Ms. Pelosi or other top Democrats to bless full impeachment proceedings and a vote. The House Judiciary Committee is already investigating whether to recommend articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump over other matters, but Ms. Pelosi has consistently questioned the strength of the case.
Proponents of impeachment have repeatedly pointed to damaging revelations — including several instances of possible obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump detailed by the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election — that they believe warrant seeking Mr. Trump’s removal. But they have run into resistance or indifference from their colleagues and the general public, in part because any impeachment proceeding could end in an acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate.
On Sunday, the pattern appeared to be holding, with the vast majority of Republican lawmakers refraining from comment about the latest allegations against Mr. Trump. A few prominent lawmakers suggested, however, that the White House should disclose the contents of the phone call with Mr. Zelensky.
“I’m hoping the president can share, in an appropriate way, information to deal with the drama around the phone call,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. “I think it would be good for the country if we could deal with it.”
Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, was more critical, deeming it “critical for the facts to come out” and saying, “If the president asked or pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate his political rival, either directly or through his personal attorney, it would be troubling in the extreme.”
A secret whistle-blower complaint has raised questions about whether President Trump improperly pressured a foreign government to investigate a political opponent.
At the same time, interviews with more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers this weekend made clear that they believed the latest allegations had the potential to be singularly incriminating, with the potential to advance the impeachment drive just as it appeared to be losing steam. Not only do the allegations suggest that Mr. Trump was using the power of his office to extract political gains from a foreign power, they argued, but his administration is actively trying once again to prevent Congress from finding out what happened.
“I don’t want to do any more to contribute to the divisiveness in the country, but my biggest responsibility as an elected official is to protect our national security and Constitution,” said Representative Debbie Dingell of Michigan, adding that it is “becoming more and more difficult” for Democrats to avoid an all-out impeachment inquiry.
Several first-term lawmakers who had opposed impeachment conferred privately over the weekend to discuss announcing support for an inquiry, potentially jointly, after a hearing scheduled for Thursday with the acting national intelligence director, according to Democratic officials familiar with the conversations. A handful of them declined to speak on the record over the weekend, with some still reluctant to go public and others looking for cues from Ms. Pelosi and their freshman colleagues.
Representative Tom Malinowski, a New Jersey freshman who has supported an inquiry, said the fresh revelations made it clear that Congress must move more decisively.
“There are lines being crossed right now that I fear will be erased if the House does not take strong action to assert them, to defend them,” he said in an interview. “If all we do is leave it up to the American people to get rid of him, we have not upheld the rule of law, we have not set a precedent that this behavior is utterly out of bounds.”
The Intelligence Committee chairman, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, said Sunday morning that the accumulating evidence of wrongdoing, and of a presidential cover-up unfolding in real time, left the House with few other options. Mr. Schiff spoke with Ms. Pelosi before making his remarks to coordinate their statements, two people familiar with their conversation said, a sign that the speaker may be more comfortable moving toward a direct discussion of impeachment.
Advertisement
“I have been very reluctant to go down the path of impeachment,” Mr. Schiff said on CNN. “But if the president is essentially withholding military aid at the same time he is trying to browbeat a foreign leader into doing something illicit, providing dirt on his opponent during a presidential campaign, then that may be the only remedy that is coequal to the evil that that conduct represents.”
Mr. Schiff first brought the existence of the whistle-blower complaint to light a little more than a week ago, and has been the party’s lead negotiator with the acting director of national intelligence, who has refused to turn it over to Congress.
Progressives in Congress have watched the stonewalling with seething frustration, and in recent days, they have begun to openly second-guess Ms. Pelosi’s go-slow approach.
“At this point, the bigger national scandal isn’t the president’s lawbreaking behavior — it is the Democratic Party’s refusal to impeach him for it,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, who commands considerable influence among progressives, wrote on Twitter late Saturday night.
Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington and the co-chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, said in an interview that she was now ready to vote outright to impeach Mr. Trump, rather than simply continuing the investigation, and that she planned to make her case in public.
“There is no congressional authority anymore that we are being allowed to exercise, except the one that we have not exercised yet,” Ms. Jayapal said.
But the more crucial issue is whether Democrats from the districts Mr. Trump won or nearly lost can stomach a push to expel him.
Advertisement
Representative Dina Titus of Nevada said once a transcript is made public of Mr. Trump pressuring Mr. Zelensky, she doubted that even Democrats from competitive seats could continue to resist impeachment.
“Once that comes out,” said Ms. Titus, an impeachment proponent, “I don’t see how they can fight it any longer.”
Strikingly, some traditionally cautious veteran Democrats said the party might have no choice but to move toward impeachment. They believe that Senate Republicans, who are clinging to their majority of 53 seats, would pay a political price for protecting Mr. Trump if they voted to exonerate him in the face of damning evidence of malfeasance and a House vote to impeach.
“They’ve got to take a second look” at impeachment, Terry McAuliffe, the former Virginia governor and national party chairman, who is an ally of Ms. Pelosi, said of fellow Democrats. He predicted that the latest revelations would “push some of our folks over.”
James Carville, the longtime Democratic strategist, said he had opposed impeachment, but now thinks the House should move “quick and clean” after obtaining a transcript of Mr. Trump’s phone call. “Let the Senate Republicans stew,” he said.
Nicholas Fandos and Jonathan Martin reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Peter Baker contributed reporting from Washington.

Ukraine and Whistle-Blower Issues Emerge as Major Flashpoints in Presidential Race
Sept. 21, 2019

Trump Pressed Ukraine’s Leader on Inquiry Into Biden’s Son
Sept. 20, 2019

Is It an Impeachment Inquiry or Not? Democrats Can’t Seem to Agree
Sept. 11, 2019

Nicholas Fandos is a reporter in the Washington bureau covering Congress. @npfandos
Jonathan Martin is a national political correspondent. He has reported on a range of topics, including the 2016 presidential election and several state and congressional races, while also writing for Sports, Food and the Book Review. He is also a CNN political analyst. @jmartnyt
Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent. She joined The Times in 2015 as a campaign correspondent and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on Donald Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. Previously, she worked at Politico, The New York Post and The New York Daily News. @maggieNYT
A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 22, 2019, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Admits He Spoke To Ukraine About Biden . Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
Site Index
Go to Home Page »
news
• home page
• world
• U.S.
• politics
• Election 2020
• New York
• business
• tech
• science
• sports
• obituaries
• today’s paper
• corrections”

Yellowdog's avatar

This story has been going on since an article by The Hill in April and a big ABC News story in June.

I am sorry to see that so many are unfamiliar with these unfolding events, and are only now starting to see a re-shaped narrative. Trump has the authority to talk to the Ukraine about corruption in our ranks. Yes, the Ukraine were against Trump and supported Hillary in 2016, but that does not mean Trump is now involved the same way Hillary was then. It means, those in the current administration want to see what was done to strongarm the Ukraine into dropping an investigation into Biden’s son is brought to justice.

Yes, there are still spies, er, “whistleblowers” in the Trump administration. That does not mean any crime was committed. Just that the Trump administration still has partisan individuals still spying, lying, reporting…

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Yellowdog Your hero is BOZO and thug.

The way it is going the GOP will be first in line to impeach him, he is an embarrassment to the free world.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

He got caught and admits it but in his eyes (Godlike when he looks in the mirror LOL) he did no wrong because he blackmails and make his employees sign a NDA.
So it is things as usual !
Which is not legal in the Federal or state government.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III Thank you. I honestly can’t read NYT or WaPo articles…they immediately go to a page that wants me to sign in or subscribe…something I will not do. But looking at what you posted, I do, indeed, see a lot of the key words that show there really is only supposition. Let me key an example:
” President Trump acknowledged on Sunday that he raised corruption accusations against former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. during a phone call with Ukraine’s leader, a stunning admission as pressure mounted on Democrats to impeach Mr. Trump over allegations he leaned on a foreign government to help damage a political rival.”
Let’s look at that. Later in the article, they quote Trump as saying he did indeed talk to the Ukrainian president, congratulating him on dealing with corruption and stating he felt they didn’t need to deal with people like Joe Biden or his son causing problem for them. So yes, Trump did acknowledge he discussed corruption accusation against Biden with the Ukrainian leader. What Trump did really isn’t illegal and is well within the purview of the office of the POTUS. But the quote from the article goes on to discussion pressure mounting on Democrats to impeach. And now they are doing it on “allegations” alone.
But funny thing about the NYT (well, not funny, but very predictable) is that they really don’t discuss the details that have come out about the “whistleblower” or why those complaints were not forwarded to Congress. Let me help there. The “whistleblower” really didn’t hear the phone call. He was told about it from someone else. So already we have left whistleblower status. Especially as it pertains to the intelligence community where there are special rules. The DNI looked at the complaint and found out it didn’t come from someone within the intelligence community that fell under his umbrella. In fact, the DNI IG shouldn’t have been involved at all. After that, it enters a realm of what is and isn’t required to be released and what CAN and CAN’T be released to Congress. Per the DNI head, he does not have the unilateral authority to call this one since it involves a conversation the POTUS was having with another foreign leader. He had to discuss the matter with DOJ legal and it was determined that it doesn’t meet the criteria.
Now you can complain all day long that this is sleazy or that there is innuendo or supposition that something might have been done underhanded. But in the end, what you have is a second-hand report that was evaluated per the process and not processed as a whistleblower complaint within the intelligence community. But the NYT will not go there. All they will do is try to paint the picture that something was done that might have been illegal (again, they can’t say for sure because they haven’t seen the complaint, nor evaluated it for themselves). So the NYT piece really says nothing other than “hate Trump”.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Did you not hear what I just told you @seawulf575? I said exactly that above, and told you it does the same thing to me. I can’t read them either, but I have fast fingers so I get it copied before it blocks me.

jca2's avatar

I saw today that Trump said he is deserving of the Nobel Prize, and he’s done “many things to deserve it.” hahahaha You really couldn’t make this stuff up.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III I only get about 3 seconds and 2 of that doesn’t have any response from my mouse.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 He has done more than Obama did when he got it. The Nobel prize has turned into a joke.

Yellowdog's avatar

Obama got it either because he was the first black president, or, whenever I inquired, because of the fact that he wasn’t George Bush.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

~ ~ ~ ~ Didn’t Hitler try nominating himself for a Noble Prize ? ?

seawulf575's avatar

Obama got it for campaign promises. Here’s how the process works:

https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/

The Norwegian Nobel Foundation begins receiving nominations in September of the year before the prize is going to be awarded. All nominations MUST be received before February 1 of the year the prize is going to be awarded. Obama got the prize his first year in office which means he was sworn in on January 20th and in the following 11 days his name had to be submitted. So what did he achieve before that? Nothing, really. So he was awarded the prize for nothing more than campaign promises. Yes, it is a joke.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie Nope. Hitler was nominated as a joke by a gentleman by the name of Erik Gottfrid Christian Brandt, a Swedish Social Democrat. He pulled the nomination after catching a lot of grief for it. But it should be noted that Hitler was named Man of the Year by that left leaning Time Magazine. Interesting, huh?
As for Trump nominating himself, I would say probably not. What appeared to be a satirical submission for him was received, but not taken seriously. And there is no indication it was from him. AND due to the Nobel foundation’s rules, the name of the nominees and those nominating them cannot be released (by them) for 50 years.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Even Obama recognized that the prize was probably a stretch, but the Nobel committee was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT that the elevation of a black man to the Presidency of the United States was a VERY big and exceptional deal. Now you can dog Obama all you like, but he is NOT the one who has diminished the office. The Swedes would do better nominating Larry, Curly and Moe, than our lying carrot.

Yellowdog's avatar

I thought that they were Norwegians.

jca2's avatar

@Yellowdog: Bestowed by Swedish and Norwegian institutions.

Yellowdog's avatar

Oh. OK thanks @jca2

Did they want the prize back when wars began?

jca2's avatar

Is that question for me, @Yellowdog ? What do you mean?

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . I have already opined, that Obama did not deserve the NPP, at the time it was awarded him. So. Here we are in agreement again….Dammit….

@Yellowdog . The link you provided, could be interpreted, in several ways. However, I agree that he seemed to be bragging about what he did. I have never been a Biden supporter. I think ALL politicians, are corrupt.

But… That doesn’t mean that Trump, doing the same thing, makes him less corrupt… You cannot deny that…

The link that @jca provided, simply reported, what I had said several posts above.

My question now is “how can you condemn Biden, but not Trump?”

I personally like E. Warren. Of the candidates for 2020. I won’t vote for her, or anyone else, so worry not. I don’t vote.

But. If you are going to hang Biden, for his “extortion,” how can you not hold Trump, to the same judgement?...

The situations, are practically identical. Which means that you are judging Biden, but not Trump…

IMO. Neither of them, should be POTUS, and both, should be held accountable for their actions. But you give Trump, a pass. Can you explain why?

Otherwise, you seem to have a double standard. You have “some” evidence of both men, committing the same abuse of power, and breaking the same laws… Your thoughts?....

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, duh. If I tried to copy all of that by using the mouse I wouldn’t have time either, @seawulf575.

jca2's avatar

If you want it cut and pasted let me know. I have subscription code so i can access unlimited.

Yellowdog's avatar

@MrGrimm888 YOU seem to be saying that Trump did the same thing that Biden did.

Did Trump withhold or strong-arm or blackmail the Ukrraine? I think not Everyone seems to be saying now that there was no quid-pro-quo.

So, if Trump didn’t blackmail or commit extortion, then brag about it multiple times, how can he be guilty of what Biden did?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Or let me know. I don’t have a subscription but I’m very fast.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Yellowdog Your lack of logical thinking is AMAZING

“So, if Trump didn’t blackmail or commit extortion, then brag about it multiple times, how can he be guilty of what Biden did?”

Dutchess_III's avatar

It is quite astonishing isn’t it @Tropical_Willie. I’d say he’s a good representative of the trumpsters. Utterly illogical and delusional.

seawulf575's avatar

If Trump actually did use coercion, he should be punished for it. I just have a really strong feeling that he didn’t. And right now, the only people that know for sure…that were on the call…say he didn’t. So what we have here…again…is a lot of evidence that says he didn’t do anything wrong and one anonymous accuser that wasn’t even privy to the actual conversation and the left going crazy swearing up and down that Trump is the crook.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Coercion would be the least of his crimes.
He’ll be punished for a LOT of stuff. Just wait.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Why didn’t Trump just spy on Biden?” In case you haven’t heard, trump is an idiot.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It kind of looks like that little stunt got the ball rolling toward impeachment. I caught part of Pelosi’s speech. From what I gather, there are a lot of valid reasons for impeachment, but that phone call was traitorous and something the average person can understand as wrong.

Yellowdog's avatar

@Dutchess_III A transcript of that phone call is available today.

It was a congratulatory phone call, No extortion from Trump. But both sides discussed crowdstrike, the firm the Democrats hired to say the Democrat computers were hacked by Russians. Both the Ukraine and the U.S. want the corruption involving Joe and Hunter Biden and the Ukraine investigated, and with new leadership in the Ukraine, this will now be forthcoming.

Pelosi knew nothing when she made her announcement. She had no privileged knowledge of the conversation and we know more now from the transcript than their “whistleblower” who only had second or third hand knowledge.

Nowhere did Trump say he would withhold money or aid, as Biden did.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It was there. I am not surprised that you completely missed it @Yellowdog.

Yellowdog's avatar

@Dutchess_III Joe Biden isn’t even a political rival of Donald Trump. He doesn’t have a chance.

Why not look towards Elizabeth Warren? She has a better chance than Joe Biden. Besides that, she would be the first woman and Native American president. And she vehemently, adamently HATES TRUMP with every throb of every molecule of juice in her pith and core.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Of course Biden is a political rival! He’s the number one democratic candidate for 2020.

What the hell does Warren have to do trump leaning on the Ukraine like a mafia don to spy on Biden?

Everyone with half a brain hates trump with a passion.

Yellowdog's avatar

I’m just saying that Warren is a better choice than Biden.

—Elizabeth Warren is a woman;
—Elizabeth Warren would be the first Native American president;
—She also would have wide appeal to white supremacists, since she is a blond-haired, blue eyed, very white bloodlined American.
—Elizabeth Warren HATES Trump and will spend most of her time undoing everything Trump has accomplished.

Dutchess_III's avatar

That she would be a better choice is your opinion. Apparently trump feels differently. And she STILL has absolutely nothing to do with trump’s asking Ukraine to spy for him on Biden.

Yellowdog's avatar

I’m only saying she is a better candidate to run against Trump.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Obviously trump doesn’t share your opinion or he would have asked North Korea or someone to spy on her.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I thought it was proven that Warren isn’t actually Naive American, at all… Am I thinking about someone else?

Yellowdog's avatar

@Dutchess_III Sloppy Joe is about to be thrown under the bus.

Elizabeth Warren is a better candidate. Not only does she have the regular liberal voting bloc, who would welcome a woman and a Native American,, but a lot of old white guys will too, because they think she’s a hottie Especially when she’s mad—that’s always.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Only time, will tell. I found a particular article today, that was interesting. It was about Comey.. He stated, that he didn’t want Trump to be impeached . He felt ithat would make Trump’s base, see it as a coup, and he wanted the American people to decide that Trump should be voted out, on 2020. And that he hoped Trumpers realized their mistake.
Whether he meant it honestly, it not, I still felt like that was an interesting perspective. It certainly runs counter, to the “get Trump out, by any means conspiracy, the right holds to.”...

One thing I do know, is that we can’t trust ANY politicians.

flutherother's avatar

That is true @MrGrimm888 but you can trust some more than others.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^That’s where I disagree. ALL politicians, are liars. Especially, at the highest points…

Dutchess_III's avatar

I think she has a few drops of Native American blood in her, but not enough to brag about….and she never bragged about it. She just mentioned it and some damn fool ran with it.

Rick has Native American blood in him and that is why he looks like Mr. Miyagi. :D

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III she didn’t brag about it? Please. She used it on college applications and job applications. She defended it vehemently when she mentioned it and some damn fool ran with it. And why did she mention it in the first place? To play on it.

Yellowdog's avatar

Elizabeth Warren used a lifetime of grants and programs intended for Native Americans who live on reservations and so forth, She is a wealthy white woman of high privilege who was allowed to take advantage of these,

However, she must have really believed it if she had the genetic testing done. Turns out she has less Native American ancestry than the overwhelming majority of Americans have. If she really believes this, perhaps she has a mild psychosis. Her constant anger and disgust is kind of amusing and even endearing so I wonder about this.

I would like to REALLY know how she thinks things ought to be.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I believe her disgust is more than justified. There is plenty to be angry and disgusted about, beginning with the moron at the wheel.

stanleybmanly's avatar

But back to the original question, and the implication that the fool would not do something so blatantly open in defiance of the law. REALLY? The question assumes first that Trump is an individual of rational judgement, and more importantly, that he might have some clue as to what is and is not ethical, let alone legal. By now the sheer weight of accusations, investigations and inquiries sitting on Trump portend impossible odds on his survival.

Yellowdog's avatar

Well, Elizabeth Warren will hopefully get the nomination. She is the benefactor no matter whether Trump OR Biden fails to pass muster.

In order to win, she needs Biden removed from the pool of Democrat candidates, AND she needs the Dems to win over Trump, so she needs Trump disgraced as well. So in order to win, she needs both to loose.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I’m only like 16th Cherokee. But, I resonate more, with the way they lived, than my more common ancestors. That’s not a crime. It’s more of a feeling of common ground, with those people. I think, that that is where Warren’s heart is. So. I personally don’t mind, her feeling more connected to Native American people, than her European ancestors…

Defining characteristics, being in coexistence, with nature, and others…

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I’m good with Warren worrying about the plight of the Native Americans. That isn’t the problem. The problems arise when she claims to be NA with zero proof. She used that claim on several official papers and it benefited her to do so. That is the problem. She claimed a heritage that isn’t there so she could get a leg up. If Trump did something like that, you would be saying he lied again and falsified records. But this is just another case of someone on the left making excuses for a Dem POTUS candidate’s bad behavior.
I have to ask…don’t Dems care what sort of criminals they put into our countries highest office?

MrGrimm888's avatar

I don’t think Warren was washed away, by caring about NA rights. I think, she just identified more, with them.

No party “cares,” about a person being a criminal. They just want to win…

You and i, both seem to agree, that it doesn’t matter “who” wins highest office. They care about their agenda…. it’s that simple….

seawulf575's avatar

Yes, but the frustration comes from the incessant acceptance of criminal acts by Dem candidates when they want to create crisis about Repubs. Here’s a thought…why don’t you see it going the other way? Why aren’t the Repubs blowing stuff up about Dems?

stanleybmanly's avatar

The Republicans are keeping their heads down for the very obvious reason that in contrast to the proliferation of cesspools around Trump, NOTHING done by either of the Clintons, Obama or Biden can hold a candle. The party is hitched to a loser so problematic that the virtual dissolution of that party now looms as a very real and viable prospect. The fool is the greatest threat to the neutralization of the Republican brand since the days of FDR , and the team has really BIG PROBLEMS with Trump heading the brand.

seawulf575's avatar

Huh. Yet right now, Trump’s approval rating is better than Obama’s was at the same point in his first term. And basically every poll out there shows he is a shoe-in to win a second term since the Dems have swung so far left as to be scary. Yeah, I can see how you might view that as someone that is a “loser”. All I can say is I’m glad you are on their side.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I’m not on “their” side. I am saying that the difficulties confronting both Trump and his party are both severe and manifest.

seawulf575's avatar

Yes, you are on their side. And I am glad you are. The “difficulties” that are facing both Trump and the GOP are nothing more than creations of the left…just as most of the “scandals” that Trump has faced. And in each and every case, the facts have come out and have blown up in the faces of the Dems. I expect this to be one more time. I actually see the Dems as being in the hard spot. They know they have nothing to offer. Their candidates for 2020 are weak and would not win against Trump. Their policies have slid way to the left which is not popular with many Americans. They have wasted 3 years trying to create something that will stick to Trump and have, instead, brought the focus back to their own faults. They have dragged the liberal media into a spot where they have no credibility any longer. They have not worked towards any of the things that they claim are important to them…the things they try passing to the public as what they represent. They are at a point of no return. Their only hope is to impeach Trump with or without any actual crimes and hope the propagandists can spin that into something the public will believe. But I suspect that if the House votes to impeach Trump, the Senate will never vote to convict. So Trump will be able to point to the impeachment proceedings and show what a waste of time and tax payer dollars the Dems in Congress really are. I predict that if they vote to impeach that not only will Trump win re-election, but the Dems will lose control of the House AND will lose more seats in the Senate.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You REALLY are an optimist. I can’t imagine Trump sneaking by this time. This will be an election where NOBODY stays home. Worse, the fool’s unnecessary and reckless trade war has an excellent chance of generating the recession to coincide at full tide with the November election. Furthermore the ammo this idiot has provided his opposition is beyond generous. Those facts combined with the deluge of investigations raging about him render the man a festering leper, that any candidate in borderline districts must shun like the plague.

seawulf575's avatar

As I said…much of what you point out as negatives for Trump are, in fact negatives for the Dems. The “deluge of investigations” is a show to the people that the Dems are still not over the fact that they lost the 2016 election. These investigations have been proven time and again to be nothing but constructs of the Dems and the media. And there have been enough to make most Americans weary of their stupid games. They see how the Dems are wasting time and money that could be used on much more productive things. They are showing that all their efforts are geared towards one thing…themselves. That isn’t what Americans want. The trade war might or might not bring on a recession. And if it does, that would go against Trump, that is true. But when Dems and liberal pundits are publicly calling for a recession just to have something against Trump, that speaks more to their personalities than to Trump’s decisions. They would rather see the country go into a recession than to have anything good go towards Trump that might be used to get him re-elected. Face it…the only ammo they have against Trump is things they make up and try to spin…nothing actually factual. And as I said…every time they do that, they show their true colors and hurt themselves even more.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There you are again. The democrats not only make shit up about the dummy at genius levels. They can also wish us into a recession to savage him at the polls.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther