Trump Impeachment

[Mason Riggle]

There are glaring questions that we should all be asking, which I have yet to hear satisfactory answers to:

Why did the President of the US involve his PERSONAL attorney in an official state business capacity if that was indeed what he was doing?

Why was the actual verbatim record of the phone conversation moved to a server normally reserved for the highest level security information such as covert operations, if indeed the phone call was 'innocent', and 'perfect'? 

Why didn't the President use the agencies at his disposal such as the FBI or CIA to investigate possible corruption if this was indeed his concern? 

It was these actions, along with the contents of the phone call, which prompted the Whistleblower.   It was the release of the phone transcript BY THE WHITE HOUSE which prompted the Impeachment Inquiry, not soley the Whistleblower complaint.  

[Bodigger]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Notice how there are nuggets of truth within their narrative. It's a key part of the game they are playing. Those nuggets of truth provide grounding for the devilry. Without those nuggets of truth, grounding would be lost and the whole thing collapses. Many Trump opponents think Trump is 100% lying and delusional. He isn't. He needs a small percentage of truth as grounding for deflection and obfuscation. 

What if the accuser isn't about the truth?  Does this make a difference in the nuggets of truth Trump is claiming?

I do not think Adam Schiff is truthful.  In fact, he has shown his lack of truth consistently during the Russia investigation and lead many people to believe he had hard evidence against Trump.  Maybe Schiff should be on trial as well.

 

[Forestluv]

29 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

What if the accuser isn't about the truth?  Does this make a difference in the nuggets of truth Trump is claiming?

I do not think Adam Schiff is truthful.  In fact, he has shown his lack of truth consistently during the Russia investigation and lead many people to believe he had hard evidence against Trump.  Maybe Schiff should be on trial as well.

I would consider Schiff as a corporate dem that is part of a systemic problem. I would put Schiff's purity above Trump's, yet below Bernie's. 

This is just my view. . . I think the problem with focusing on one person is that it creates a contracted tunnel vision perspective. It's just really hard to get a meta view. I don't see Schiff as completely dishonest or completely honest. He has aspects of both. Yet if I focus on the impure aspects of Schiff, I won't be able to see the bigger picture. I would consider Schiff a mixed-bag politician who is part of a much larger system problem. If we impeach this guy, put that guy on trial, him to. . this is just "whack-a-mole" and doesn't get at the system problem. . . When I step back and look at the big picture, I would say that all of Trump's behavior is worthy of impeachment. If I zoom into misleading statements from a congressperson and become immersed in those statements, I can lose the big picture. The second tendency is to create personalities. think in opposites and categorized as "them". For example, if we focus on Schiff, it is tempting to create categories, take the opposite position and become contracted. For example, "Schiff is a liar. He misrepresented Trump's phone call. What a manipulative liar. He deserves to be on trial. He is dishonest and trying to impeach.". There are two traps here. One is to create an "us vs. them" dynamic: I am against Schiff and impeachment. The other trap is interpreting evidence through a filter which discredits Schiff - this will also discredit evidence". . ..

It's easy to get into a contracted mindset. However, this isn't about Schiff. There is a bigger systemic problem going on and we won't be able to see that by focusing on Schiff. In the bigger picture, I see impeachment as an important step in remedying a much larger problem. Impeachment is only the beginning.  Would I choose a different team to conduct the impeachment inquiry? Absolutely. Do I think corporate dems should be stripped of power and be held accountable for transgressions? Yes. As should Republicans. . . Yet when we look at the big picture, I think the strategy changes. In the big picture, I want to resolve systemic problems. On the systemic level, I would place impeaching Trump and getting him out of office as a much higher priority than going after corrupt congresspeople. There are hundreds of corrupt politicians in congress. At the systemic level, I don't think it is wise to invest in targeting specific politicians at this time because they are within widespread corruption. It would be a losing battle trying to get them to investigate themselves. To resolve systemic problems my priorities would be to first make a change in the executive branch. The executive branch has the most power and has the most influence on narrative. My top priority would be to remove Trump from office via impeachment/conviction or the 2020 election. Even a republican like Sanford or a centrist dem like Biden would stop the Trump bleeding, temporarily. My second priority is to get a structural change candidate in charge of the electorate. This will change the orientation and narrative. My top choice is Bernie. He is by far the purest candidate. He is has been rock solid for the people his entire life. He is a very special person and I doubt we will see another like Bernie for many years to come. He would be able to change the orientation. . . . My next priority would be to cutoff corporate-political corruption. I see political corruption like a cancer. If we kill off a few cancer cells, what happens? It grows back. Usually stronger. Rather, we need to cutoff the blood supply feeding the cancer. In politics, that blood supply is corporate/industrial/mega wealthy. An enormous amount of political corruption is through corporate/mega wealthy funding and lobbying. If we can neutralize it or cut it off, we would remove an ton of corruption - and that is more important to me than prosecuting individual persons. . . If there is progress in this area, I would next attempt to hold individual corrupt politicians accountable, through fines, shame, primaries, stripping them off committees etc. 

[Bodigger]

3 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

@samedm9 which rule was changed? 

"Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute." - ICIG ( the inspector general of the intelligence community)

"In fact," the ICIG's statement continues, "by law the Complainant...need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law."

Sooooo.......why was the whistle-blower rule changed?  Are you saying that it was unnecessary?  Does this not seem questionable?  I do...

[Mason Riggle]

@Bodigger there was no 'rule' change. There was a change to the form, as the [Trump Appointed] ICIG explained.

It doesn't make sense to ask if something that never happened seems fishy. 

 

 

[samedm9]

4 hours ago, Keyhole said:

Did Trump just self-impeach?  Opinions on this article?

I think it’s ridiculous.

The view point that Trump was “asking” Ukraine for help (valuable info) on his 2020 campaign, is 100% unfounded.

Biden is not a threat to Trumps re-election chances at all....we all know this, so, why would we assume trumps suggestion(more of a proposal of action than anything) to investigate corruption involving the Bidens is explicitly for campaign purposes.

Bottom line: Its not for campaign enhancement purposes. It’s part of an ongoing effort to weed out or bring light upon large scale corruption.

again, if Biden was considered a “regular citizen”, there’s absolutely nothing to “protect” him. But somehow we’ve given into the idea that his candidacy allows total immunity to any investigation involving him. So once an actual inquiry occurs, it’s motivation is spun by mass media to appear as an effort to sabotage his campaign, you cannot be serious...

[Mason Riggle]

@samedm9 I disagree with so much of what you said.  Why was Rudy Giuliani, a private personal Attorney involved? No explanation for this yet. Why was the actual transcript of the call 'locked down'? Why didn't Trump use the Official Government agencies at his disposal to root out the corruption? 

Also, nobody has said Biden is above the law or not worth looking into.  There are just proper ways to do it. You can't root out lawlessnes with more lawlessness. 

 

[Mason Riggle]

3 hours ago, samedm9 said:

"if Biden was considered a “regular citizen”, there’s absolutely nothing to “protect” him."

This is exactly the reason Trump's words are so damning. If Biden were a "regular citizen", do you think Trump would have singled him out in his call to the Ukrainian President? Where are all the other "regular citizens" Trump is asking about as "part of an ongoing effort to weed out or bring light upon large scale corruption."  Why just Biden?  Do you think Biden is the ringleader of Ukrainian Energy corruption? Are the Biden's the only corrupt people in Ukraine?  What a coincidence that the guy who happens to be running against you for President is the same guy you decide to name, by name, as the place to start in your investigation into wide scale corruption which everyone knows exists and is rampant.  
 

 

3 hours ago, samedm9 said:

Biden is not a threat to Trumps re-election chances at all....we all know this

Are you kidding me?  If the current front runner to be the Democratic nominee to run against Trump in the next election isn't a 'threat to Trumps re-election chances' (AT ALL)... then I'm not even sure we're speaking the same language.  

[Bodigger]

Obama has been quiet through all of this....any thoughts that he knew what Biden was up to?

[Mason Riggle]

@Bodigger It's possible... what exactly was Biden up to again? Remind me. 

[Bodigger]

5 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Bodigger It's possible... what exactly was Biden up to again? Remind me. 

I'm only saying that he has been quiet.  Have you heard any comments from him?  I'm curious why he (Obama) isn't backing Biden up on this.

[Mason Riggle]

@Bodigger Maybe Obama isn't a partisan hack who feels the need to defend people simply for the reason that they were part of his Administration or political party?  Maybe Obama's a Warren guy.. or a Sanders guy, and sees no pragmatic use in defending the Bidens? 

 

[Mason Riggle]

5 hours ago, samedm9 said:

I think it’s ridiculous.

The view point that Trump was “asking” Ukraine for help (valuable info) on his 2020 campaign, is 100% unfounded.

 

[Bodigger]

4 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

Why was Rudy Giuliani, a private personal Attorney involved?

 

Why was Hunter involved with Joe in foreign affairs? 

[Mason Riggle]

@Bodigger you see.. asking about Biden's son is not a response to the question of why private Attorney was involved by the Sitting US President with Official Government business.

To answer your question, as I don't know the exact reason.. I might assume it's because the Biden's are among a slew of typical greedy politicians who attempted to enrich themselves.. basically the same reason Trump acts shady.. he is.

Is it really so hard for you to conceive that both the Bidens and Trumps are corrupt, and that Trump's corruption is happening on a VASTLY greater scale than Bidens because of the powerful position he is currently in, and therefore demands VASTLY greater scrutiny, and this in NOT to say that the Bidens do not deserve any scrutiny at all?? 

 

[Forestluv]

"What-about-ism" is becoming more and more prevalent in Trumpian reality. 

[Bodigger]

16 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

"What-about-ism" is becoming more and more prevalent in Trumpian reality. 

This is what I am getting at........"What-about-ism".  My question about Obama's involvement was to escape this until more FACT's come out and attempt to change the course of the discussion.  Huh, just when I think I am making some progress I slip into a trap.  I guess that's why I am learning and not teaching LOL.  Love you all.

[Mason Riggle]

@Bodigger

5 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

My question about Obama's involvement was... ...an attempt to change the course of the discussion.

yes, this was obvious.. this was the 'whataboutism'.

It's perfectly valid to ask what the Bidens are up to.  It's 'whataboutism' to ask this question as a method of avoiding the topic at hand.  This thread is about Trump's Impeachment, not Biden's corruption, which may or may not be be a valid separate discussion.  

"Were Trumps actions Impeachable?" is a completely separate question from 'Were Trumps actions justified?"   We have to follow the rule of law, if our goal is to promote the rule of law. 

[Forestluv]

32 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

This is what I am getting at........"What-about-ism".  My question about Obama's involvement was to escape this until more FACT's come out and attempt to change the course of the discussion.  

That is not "What-about-ism". There is an underlying energetic dynamic underlying "What-about-ism". 

If a scientist observes cellular division to awaken to the mechanisms of cancer, that is a very different orientation than a scientist observing cellular division with the desire to develop his pre-conceived model and develop an anti-cancer drug he will profit from. Both scientists are sitting in their lab watching cells divide under a microscope - yet they have a different orientation. The lens of the microscope is not the only lens. There is also a lens of perception. . . 

Below are 17th century drawings of sperm viewed under a microscope by the scientist Nicholaas Hartsoeker. He was a highly intelligent scientist. How accurate are his drawings? Why do you think his interpretations were so off?

[Mason Riggle]

18 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

This is what I am getting at........"What-about-ism".  My question about Obama's involvement was to escape this until more FACT's come out and attempt to change the course of the discussion.  Huh, just when I think I am making some progress I slip into a trap.  I guess that's why I am learning and not teaching LOL.  Love you all.

4 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Bodigger

yes, this was obvious.. this was the 'whataboutism'.

It's perfectly valid to ask what the Bidens are up to.  It's 'whataboutism' to ask this question as a method of avoiding the topic at hand.  This thread is about Trump's Impeachment, not Biden's corruption, which may or may not be be a valid separate discussion.  

"Were Trumps actions Impeachable?" is a completely separate question from 'Were Trumps actions justified?"   We have to follow the rule of law, if our goal is to promote the rule of law. 

Oops.. yes, Serotoninluv, you are correct here.. The Obama question was NOT the 'what-about-ism'.. it was the previous exchange:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: Why was Rudy Giuliani, a private personal Attorney involved?

 

Bodigger: Why was Hunter involved with Joe in foreign affairs?