Trump Impeachment Inquiry Opens as Call Transcript Is Released (nytimes.com) 704
The White House released a transcript that showed President Trump urged Ukraine's leader to contact Attorney General William Barr about opening an inquiry tied to Joseph R. Biden Jr. Two intelligence officials referred Mr. Trump's activity to the Justice Dept. for a possible criminal inquiry. It declined to open one. The New York Times: President Trump released the transcript on Wednesday of a July 25 call he had with Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, in which he encouraged his Ukrainian counterpart to contact Attorney General William P. Barr about investigating a political rival. Mr. Trump has defiantly denied saying anything inappropriate on the call, but the transcript shows he clearly referred by name to former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, and encouraged Mr. Zelensky to reach out to Mr. Barr. Before the release, he declared on Twitter that Democrats had fallen into his trap, and that the release of the transcript would exonerate him -- and make them look foolish.
The transcript's release and content ensured a day of intense scrutiny. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, marveled that the attorney general has now been pulled in. Republicans stuck to their position that Mr. Trump did not offer Mr. Zelensky any inducements nor did he threaten him, so his demand for a Biden inquiry was not improper. "From a quid pro quo aspect, there's nothing there," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. The release did not go far enough for many Democrats, who have demanded to see the full complaint about Mr. Trump's actions lodged by a whistle-blower, which has not been shared with Congress. On Tuesday, Nancy Pelosi announced formal Trump impeachment inquiry. From a report: "Today, I'm announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I'm directing our 6 committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella ... The president must be held accountable," she said.
The transcript's release and content ensured a day of intense scrutiny. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, marveled that the attorney general has now been pulled in. Republicans stuck to their position that Mr. Trump did not offer Mr. Zelensky any inducements nor did he threaten him, so his demand for a Biden inquiry was not improper. "From a quid pro quo aspect, there's nothing there," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. The release did not go far enough for many Democrats, who have demanded to see the full complaint about Mr. Trump's actions lodged by a whistle-blower, which has not been shared with Congress. On Tuesday, Nancy Pelosi announced formal Trump impeachment inquiry. From a report: "Today, I'm announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I'm directing our 6 committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella ... The president must be held accountable," she said.
I am Canadian... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I am Canadian... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm Canadian as well. Apart from anything, it tells me the USMCA is dead in the water, and NAFTA stands. Congress will now be eaten up for a few months with further investigations. Pretty good deal for us folks north of the border.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As an American, I don't consider these 4 years of (basically) a stalemate to be the worst thing in the world. Yes he's an embarassment, but most of the time when government is "getting things done" it means money is disappearing, rights are disappearing, government is growing, regulations are becoming ever more onerous, and these are changes that are for all practical purposes irreversible.
Re:I am Canadian... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea but have you seen the exploding deficit? Party of fiscal conservatism my ass
Re:I am Canadian... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, now. They promised that the Tax Cut would pay for itself. I guess "pay for itself" has been redefined to "blow up the deficit". So in effect it is paying for itself, the U.S. must cover that increased debt. What happens when the interest on the debt really starts crowding out the budget? Republicans will turn around and claim entitlements must be cut, there goes SS and Medicare. The Democrats will whine about their new spending plans being unaffordable. The rich will quietly offshore their holdings.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea but have you seen the exploding deficit? Party of fiscal conservatism my ass
Indeed. Trump isn't a true Republican by any means (which is why most republicans hated him as much as the democrats do when he first came on the scene). Trump himself has wavered between supporting the two parties throughout his life. He only became a Republican when Obama became president.
Re:I am Canadian... (Score:5, Interesting)
No true Republican.
No, they're all complicit, the party has no principles, agenda, integrity or vision other than perhaps "fuck you, more money for me". You can literally watch any of them flip their position 180 degrees the moment it's concerning their guy. War is good, unless it's Hillary, she's a war hawk. North Korea is part of Axis of Evil unless Kim compliments Trump's big nuclear missile. Obama's employment numbers? Fake. Deficit is a disaster. Trump's job numbers are obviously the best numbers ever seen, and why do you care about deficit?!?
Re: I am Canadian... (Score:5, Insightful)
Weâ(TM)re you asleep during the whole hypocritical bullshit that was âoeausterityâ a decade ago when the republicans tried to tell us that they cared about the federal budget. Fucking joke. All they want is to take money away from programs that actually help the American people and the economy, and put it in the pockets of their rich friends. Fiscal conservatism is a fucking joke told to idiot randroids to convince them to vote against their own interests.
Re:I am Canadian... (Score:5, Interesting)
Its not a stalemate... if nothing else the huge number of federal judges being appointed will shape America for years... now you may think that doesn't effect you but even if we get someone who, say, cares about the climate, into office so the US can actually join a coalition of countries trying to prevent catastrophic climate change those judges will be the ones presiding over lawsuits designed to delay or end any attempt we make to change literally anything about our power consumption, our economy, you name it... even what lightbulbs need to be power efficient will be challenged in some court.
Its bad for the world unless you are a billionaire and don't have any kids.
Re:I am Canadian... (Score:4, Interesting)
Money is disappearing directly into Trump's pockets. Emoluments clause be damned. Government is growing, in very bad ways, for example, Trump is using the EPA to punish the entire state of California for, get this, wanting stricter emissions standards. Regulations are becoming more onerous. Trump is digging up making it harder for legal asylum seekers to, you know, seek asylum. Are these changes reversible? Not if we get another four years of Trump.
Basically, Trump is trying to prove that government can do no good, only bad, by stopping the government from doing anything good and forcing it to just fuck shit up.
Re:I am Canadian... (Score:5, Interesting)
Republicans have been screwing up government for years just to claim it doesn't work. Wait until Ma and Pa Kettle don't get their full SS and Medicare, they'll be bleating about "how could this happen while we were asleep at the wheel".
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
What you are saying is that the allegation that Trump is trying to make money off being president cannot be true because he is failing spectacularly at making money, and that would mean that he is incompetent. Perhaps I am too far removed from American politics to be properly informed, but Trump being incompetent cannot be ruled out.
Being really bad at crime is not a defence. Idiot terrorists who tried to firebomb Notre Dame with canisters of diesel, attempting to light it with a cigarette. They weren't let
Re: (Score:3)
Trump has failed spectacularly at literally every business he has tried to run, so this would not surprise me. The only thing that would surprise me is if Trump has ever even HAD $1 billion in personal wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
*Puts on blackface*
I am not at all surprised.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I have the beer. Not that horse piss Americans call "beer" but hand crafted brew.
Re: I am Canadian... (Score:5, Informative)
Not all American beer is Budweiser.
Re: I am Canadian... (Score:5, Funny)
The "no true beer" fallacy!
Re: (Score:3)
The irony being that the best selling beer in Canada is Budweiser. How sad is it that, not only do Canadians drink "horse piss" like it's going out of style, they actually import it from another country. Oh, and the best selling light beer in Canada - Coors Light. Meanwhile, subtle Canadian delicacies like french fries covered in gravy and cheese are starting to gain popularity in other parts of the world.
Re:I am Canadian... (Score:5, Insightful)
If your poutine is subtle, something's gone horribly wrong.
Good poutine should hit your stomach like a charging moose, coating every interior surface (especially artery walls) with enough calories to last through the winter.
Re:I am Canadian... (Score:5, Interesting)
And don't kid yourself into thinking this isn't an important topic for Nerds...
The point here is nationalism. Is Canadian beer is better than American beer? American tech is better than Chinese tech? The attitude that we are "patriots" and must protect our native industries stunts human advancement. Rogue governments who use their power to enhance and pander to their indigenous industries creates unnecessary conflict.
The US is struggling with the same issues everyone else has on this planet. We all need to wake up and realize the world is smaller and that we're all in this together as a race. The Internet has destroyed the business model for print journalism and what has replaced it is untrustworthy. Journalism is a critical foundation to a functional democracy. We have to find a way to root out corruption in our governments. Canada has its own issues on this front with the Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould situation.
I was always happy when I saw the Canadian arm on the US Space Shuttle. We need more of that.
Nationalism needs to go - its the stock in trade of corrupt immoral politicians.
Re:I am Canadian... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any chance we could just stop talking about Trump and talk about beer?
Re: (Score:3)
Any chance we could just stop talking about Trump and talk about beer?
Sure.
Can you believe Trump doesn't like beer? Dammit, I'm still doing it....
Re:I am Canadian... (Score:5, Funny)
Sure.
Can you believe Trump doesn't like beer? Dammit, I'm still doing it....
That sounds an impeachable offense to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's to beer! Helping nerds get laid since 6,000 BC.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not into the home brewing yet. I have yet to pull the trigger on that but I assume I will be doing it soon.
My hats off to you for not poisoning yourself. My buddy back home brewed something on his first attempt. Thinking that I was going to die wasn't a understatement.
Re: (Score:3)
The good news is that there wasn't "an original brewer". Brewing evolved all around the world many times in many places. You can still find numerous indigenous peoples who have their traditional brewing process with traditional ingredients. A lot of them are incredibly bizarre, like the women chewing up tubers and spitting them into a pot for hours to create the base fermentables. (Enzymes in the saliva start breaking down otherwise undigestable starches, allowing the yeast to come along a few days later an
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't be opposed to a new Slashdot rule. Anytime you catch something devolving into politics and/or religion we just veer it off into a discussion about booze.
Beer is fine but personally I'm a mead man. Unfortunately there isn't really much on offering commercially so I make my own.
Re:I am Canadian... (Score:4)
I wouldn't say I called him a miracle worker but he did have a lot to do with changing the economy and he did open the door with North Korea. That was also comments made 2 years ago. We are now 3 years in and things are changing. You, see my political views, actually none of my views, are set in stone. I look at what is going, judge the changes, and change my views to fit accordingly. It's called being a informed voter.
Of course I'm wrong on some points. I freely admit that. Only a fool believes he is correct about everything.
I'm bother to respond to any of sources you cited. The first one is The Vox. Citing that as a source for anything automatically invalids anything you have to say from that point forward. Same for the NYTimes.
Re: (Score:3)
Not automatically but reject sources that are not source but are left or right wing propaganda. Except for the Vox. That is just pure garbage. I doubt they have printed an honest story since going on line.
Re: I am Canadian... (Score:2)
You know, Michael Moore keeps blogging about how the Democrats are even more stupid than the Republicans. He's right. This is going to cost the Democrats the election. The Republicans won't be able to get rid of Trump in time, and he WILL get the second term unless he is Kennedey'ed.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, that one about the supreme court had more sex. This one seems like it will be just old people yelling at each other.
Re:I am Canadian... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you die from a blown out knee from too much racquetball then sure. MRI access in Canada is based on demand and severity.
If you are in an accident and need an MRI you get in right away.
Re:You know he's crashing the global economy right (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but getting medical attention in Canada (at least in Quebec), you may die on the waiting line.
This is simply untrue. I live in Quebec and had this conversation with my sleep specialist's receptionist:
me: I need to see the doctor about my sleeping disorder
receptionist: I'll take your number and he will get back to you in 5 or 6 months
me: My CPAP machine broke and I'm having trouble functioning at work or even staying awake
receptionist: We can fit you in the day after tomorrow.
It's all about need. If it's a minor thing, it could take months, but anything critical happens quickly
Re: (Score:3)
These are by far the incredible minority of cases. More people probably die of malpractice in medicine than because they were on a waiting list for too long. It is, obviously, a tragedy that they died on a waiting list, but dying because you can't afford insulin is just as bad and considerably more preventable.
As I get older, I know more and more people that have gone through the Canadian system and have come out the other end in good shape. There are bobbles along the way, there's no doubt. The system is i
Re: (Score:3)
You should try waiting in an American ER sometimes. You get to die waiting AND your family gets bankrupted, all in one shot.
Re: (Score:3)
I started typing "what is" and got auto-completed to your question. Trends are fun.
Anyway, half-way decent summary here [axios.com].
Re: You know he's crashing the global economy righ (Score:5, Informative)
Nixon's impeachment is probably a good source of information. I believe it's the part of the process in which they attempt to gather sufficient evidence, testimony, etc. to build a case for possible hearings. It's the first formal step in the overall process; the inquiry is typically invoked by committee in house, or senate, as with Nixon, but could originate elsewhere, e.g. Kenneth Starr's investigation of Clinton. Whether or not to proceed with hearings is decided by a simple majority of the house, and the case is tried by the senate, and decided by 2/3s majority there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Heineken, now considered "real beer" by Europeans.
Re: (Score:3)
Often repeated about long surpassed and lapped European output by Europeans in many categories not just beer. When it comes to food and beverages most europeans don't even seem to have moved on from the idea that the city/region/country something is grown has a relation to taste/quality beyond climate and plant genetics. Never mind that double blind taste tests consistently reveal the claims of better quality and taste are purely imagined by so called experts. The idea hasn't been logically sound in decades
News for nerds? (Score:2, Insightful)
Muller incomentent performance (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait,
If Muller had a poor and incompetent performance, doesn't that mean that he came to the wrong conclusion, which would be that Trump should be charged? If someone basically handed me a 'no you didn't do enough to break the law' document, I wouldn't be calling him incompetent, I would be thanking him.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Muller had a poor and incompetent performance, doesn't that mean that he came to the wrong conclusion, which would be that Trump should be charged?
I think from Trump's point of view it's more like:
1) If Mueller were competent, he would have immediately seen it was baseless and wrapped up much more quickly.
2) He would have investigated the origin of the Steele Dossier to see whether or not the info Hillary and DNC bought through Steele from Russian intelligence was part of the Russian efforts to interfere in the election.
3) He wouldn't have issued the confusing report and public statements, with meaningless words like "does not exonerate," when there i
Re:Muller incomentent performance (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump's point of view with regard to Mueller, like most of his views, is wrong.
1) Mueller found both smoke and fire, so it wasn't baseless.
2) The Steele Dossier was irrelevant. Maybe if Hillary was president it would matter (although I don't really pay attention enough to know what's there) but losers don't matter.
3) The only reason anyone is confused by the report is because they want to be. It's very clearly stated that Trump committed many individual acts of obstruction of justice (I forget was it 10 or 14) any one of which would be prosecutable if he wasn't president.
Re:Muller incomentent performance (Score:5, Informative)
Just so it's clear, literally everything the previous post said is a lie. Mueller found (and indicted, and convicted) people involved in Trump's campaign who did collude with Russia (note, "collusion" isn't a legal term, so of course none of those crimes were for "collusion"). On obstruction, Mueller stated why he wasn't making a charge, he didn't have the legal authority to charge Trump. He also said that's the only reason why he wasn't charging Trump with obstruction of justice.
Even the smaller lies are telling. Mueller didn't leave it up to the DOJ to charge Trump because they have the same legal restrictions. He begged the House to take it up, and the fact that they didn't is astounding.
Is There No Escape? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is There No Escape? (Score:5, Funny)
Is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Elect a bad businessman president, don't be surprised when he tries to run the country like a bad business. He puts unqualified family members in positions of authority, prioritizes loyalty to himself, prefers yes-men as subordinates, and tries to make back room deals. You don't get as wealthy as Trump (claims to be) without breaking a few laws and ignoring a lot of ethics and it's worked for him so far so why would he stop now? And unfortunately a not insignificant number (but not a majority, much to his chagrin) of Americans support him.
Re:Is anyone surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a transcript! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not a transcript! (Score:4, Interesting)
For those that are unfamiliar with impeachment (Score:5, Interesting)
So why Impeach? A few reasons:
1. Rule of law. Donald Trump has violated law in two verified ways (he obstructed justice in the Mueller probe and this latest incident he solicited a thing of value from a foreign power in exchange for aid, i.e. a bribe). And that's before we talk about all the emoluments clause violations.
2. Tie him up politically in non stop investigations. This is what was done to Bill Clinton, and it's a big part of why he didn't take action on healthcare in the 90s.
3. If the establishment Democrats (Pelosi, Schumer, etc) ignore this Trump is likely to go after them next using the same tactic, making this a bridge too far.
Note that scoring political points is _not_ a reason to impeach. Polls show impeachment is unpopular. Yes, 40% of the country wants him removed from office for the aforementioned crimes. But 55% do not and 5% are ambivalent.
This will also energize his base. The establishment Dems would like to run a "safe" candidate like Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg or Kamala Harris in 2020. The kind that won't excite Democratic voters but might turn a few moderates. Impeachment makes that a very difficult proposition. This will increase Trump's voter turn out.
The Dems will have to respond by also increasing voter turn out. But it's hard to get folks out for milktoast candidates who run on nothing more than a "return to normalcy". If people were OK with "normalcy" we'd be saying Madam President right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Several good points made here, some I have a problem with though.
Central to all of it is fear. Democractic supporters aren't in favor of impeachment proceedings because they're afraid that process will get Trump re-elected. Democratic voters are afraid of certain candidates because they fear a progressive will alienate enough people to get Trump re-elected. The fears are somewhat rational, but we need a reminder that one of the key reasons the 2016 general election went the way it did is because of a low
I don't think Trump left them a choice (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you're missing the point on "safe" candidates. Ignoring that Hilary was "safe" (she was the most conservative candidate in history, she'd have kept everything exactly the same) the issue is that impeachment will galvanize and radicalize both sides. It will make the election even more so about voter turn out.
It's hard to get people to turn out for more of the same when 60-70% of them live paycheck to paycheck. People want solutions. The want answers. So for guys like Joe Biden who just stand up and say "Vote for me and nothing will fundamentally change" that can and will depress the vote. And this has nothing to do with being inspired. It's everything to do with wanting a candidate that speaks to the problems in people's lives.
That sort of 90's style centrist milktoast won't fly against Trump. It didn't work when Jeb tried it and it won't work now.
let me guess (Score:5, Interesting)
People that are pro-Trump will insist this exonerates him.
People that are anti-Trump will insist this proves his guilt.
Does that about sum it up? Can we avoid the next 1200 angry posts and get back to tech news now?
IT IS NOT A TRANSCRIPT! (Score:3)
It's their cleaned up version and it's sounds like a mobster. Imagine how bad the real transcript was!
The 100% impeachable offense was the cover up and breaking the law that clearly defined that the whistleblower report to congressional oversight.
The 100% impeachable offense is the blatant and overreaching obstruction of congressional oversight. Literally the same as you telling your coworker to NOT speak to your boss about what they saw you doing and then expecting your boss to not fire your dishonest ass
It's right in the transcript.... (Score:5, Insightful)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-... [whitehouse.gov]
The entire call Trump continually goes back to the Biden thing, telling President Zelenskyy multiple times that: ... If you could speak to him that would be great. "
"I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General.
"I will have Mr.Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it."
"I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call."
Regardless of your political party, you cannot deny what Trump did on that phone call.
Transcript hasn't been released yet (Score:3)
Another Political Waste of Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Let follow how impeachment in the US goes:
1) The House has the right to start impeachment proceedings. They can find it needs to have an formal trial. This will most likely happen as the House is controlled by the Democrats.
2) The Senate had the power to hold the trial. This will need a 2/3 majority vote. This will be most likely impossible, as the Republicans have a majority. To get a super majority.. I wouldn't hold my breath.
3) The Senate has the final say. No appeals can be made, as the Judicial branch has stated so and given this to the Senate.
End result: Waste of Time. Waste of Money Nothing changes. Government of US doing nothing for it's people.
Re: (Score:3)
Hilarious if this causes too close a look at the Bidens and fucks their political career permanently. Pelosi is a retard, she tilts at windmills while the real war is elsewhere. We are going to have Trump in 2020 if the Democrats continue this stupidity.
Trump derangement syndrome (Score:3)
There is nothing in this transcript that's impeachment worthy. Not even close. Trump asking to look into Joe Biden's dealings in Ukraine's energy sector is simply a request to look into a possible corruption scandal in its own house. Ukraine is notoriously corrupt place, even under pro-western president Poroshenko (just left office). Why is this important? They also happen to receive hundreds of millions worth of American aid. If Dems think this impeachment will remove the president from office, they're completely delusional .
Re: Lol (Score:5, Informative)
Don't you think that is a separate topic?
This is about one world leader asking another to investigate the circle of an opposing political candidate. To basically meddle in the internal affairs of the US's political system. Something our intelligence agencies have been warning about by outside actors. Now I guess they need to warn about specific internal actors...
Re:Or, allowing legit criminal investigation resum (Score:5)
From what I can tell, you've got it pretty backwards.
The story begins in spring 2014, when Hunter Biden, then–Vice President Joe Biden’s son, took a seat on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural-gas company, not long after the fall of Kremlin-tied President Viktor Yanukovych. Burisma’s owner was Mykola Zlochevsky, who’d been a minister in the Yanukovych government. In February 2015, Viktor Shokin became Ukraine’s prosecutor general, and said he would investigate Burisma.
But the international community came to view Shokin as too weak on corruption, despite his promises to investigate wrongdoing. The United States, the International Monetary Fund, and others pressured Ukraine to investigate corruption more thoroughly, but Shokin took no serious action. In March 2016, Biden was in Kiev, where he was scheduled to announce a $1 billion American loan to the Ukrainian government. Biden told the story himself at a Council on Foreign Relations event in 2018:
I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
It looks here like the Ukraine sent a prosecutor who simply turned a blind eye to corruption, and the international community decided that this prosecutor was corrupt and not really investigating. The Obama Administration sent Biden in to tell them to get rid of the corrupt prosecutor
Imagine if Biden had simply let it go on. We would have headlines about the Obama Administration's complicity in corruption in Ukraine, failing to press for removal of a corrupt prosecutor who was reporting no corruption where there was clearly corruption.
The best part is having Biden's son on the board created a mild conflict of interest: it would have been profitable for the Bidens had Joe suggested the Ukraine keep Shokin on the case, as Shokin was all but guaranteed to produce a clean report with no evidence of corruption even if the corruption was rampant and blatant. Calling for Shokin's dismissal was against the direct financial interest of the Bidens.
Re:Or, allowing legit criminal investigation resum (Score:5, Informative)
There is so much wrong with this, it's a joke Where to even start...
For one. Biden wasn't acting on his own, the prosecutor (Viktor Shokin) was famous for working against any attempt to combat corruption. He never prosecuted anyone political connected (including Hunter Biden's boss). Multiple law enforcement agencies wanted him gone, the president of the USA wanted him gone and Biden did what he was told.
The company Hunter Biden worked for was never under investigation and the allegation that it was came from Viktor Shokin after he was fired. There is no evidence that it was true and it all very much looks like a lie made up in revenge for being fired given that Viktor was famous for not prosecuting anyone important.
I read the transcript. Trump asked them to look into Hunter Biden specifically and then had his personal lawyer contact them. If you don't get why asking a foreign leader to "look into" family members of his political rival is unethical, I have no idea what to even say in response. The judicial branch is supposed to be arm's length for a reason and I haven't seen this much of a breach of ethics in the US since the time a state Governor used her job to demand the ex husband of one of her family members be fired as a police officer.
Re:Lol (Score:5, Informative)
No Trump has implied consequences for a foreign country to dig up dirt on a political opponent, implying that if they cannot do such there may be consequences.
Heck he even went on a Rant saying Ukraine had Hillaries Emails too.
What Biden as vice president did or didn't do with Ukraine for his son is a different problem all together. But having a foreign country pressures to come up with evidence under implied (wink wink nudge nudge) penalty. As the US is giving Ukraine more then it gets back, implying perhaps cutting off support if the country doesn't come up with some "Trumped Up" Charges
Nixon resigned over impeachment threats for just having some Americans dig into the political opponents office. That was without having to bring in a foreign government.
Re: (Score:3)
From my understanding, the Ukrainians were the ones trying to bring info about Biden to Trump. Zelensky was elected largely to clean out corruption in the Ukrainian government. That their previous administration fired their prosecutor after foreigners strong armed them is definitely relevant to Zelensky. There's no need to pressure Zelensky to do the things that are already his mandate. What would need to be investigated is whether or not there's any other justification for firing the prosecutor. Biden clai
Re: (Score:3)
Errrm....you do realize that Ukraine is not Russia, yes? Put quickly, Trump asked a foreign power to help kneecap a political adversary. What part of treason do you not get?
Re: (Score:3)
You could read it that way, but based on what I've read of the text of the transcript, I don't think it's enough on its own to successfully impeach the President. It may be enough to start proceedings, but I think we'd need to see something more substantial from the whistleblower report for this to get very far.
Neither what he says he did, what he actually did, nor what his opponents accuse him of doing co
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress's job is to investigate the President where called upon. The President's job is most definitely not to use his office to investigate an opponent. Remember Watergate?
Re: (Score:3)
Then certainly the DOJ or the State Department would have been the one making such requests. Having your personal attorney, someone not approved for any cabinet position, and thus one to some extent beyond Congressional oversight, is at the very least irregular and inappropriate.
Re: (Score:3)
Taken out of context, that *might* be argued to be a joke.
No, taken out of context it is being argued as a demand for Russia to hack into an email server for political gain.
Taken IN context it is so obviously a joke that only a deranged person could argue otherwise. Only a deranged person could claim something like "fact that Donald Trump has never been clearly seen to be joking about anything".
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the prosecutor was actually very bad and corrupt. But the prosecutor was pro-Russia therefore Trump likes him. The whole thing also reads like Trump quickly browsed a Cliff's Notes version of a foreign policy memo.
Giuliani is not at all highly respected, he's mostly a laughing stock and more of a political tool than an actual legal assistant. Giuliani is also one of the president's personal lawyers, not a member of the DOJ or part of any official investigation, so using Giuliani here can only be fo
Re:Thank you House Demcrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Do you think people feel sorry for Trump? His base is already all in. It's not like they were just going to stay home unless he gets impeached.
Trump's base might as well be 20ft of concrete anchored in 500ft of bedrock. It's that solid. Trump could pull a Michael Jackson and dangle a baby off the White House roof and they'd still vote for him. But Trump didn't just win because of his base. He won because a lot of people were tired and wanted to try something different. The Democrats' only hope is to try and get enough of that 2nd group who have seen what a shitshow we got to decide a little more stability and predictability is desirable. If they can do that, they have a good shot.
There's also the benefit that the GOP has been so sycophantic towards Trump that they've basically torched any pretense of responsibility or governance. If things keep up we have a very good shot of a centrist party rising up.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason Trump's base is so solid - and growing every day - is because he inadvertently ripped the mask off the lunatic Left for the whole world to see. There's no putting that horse back in the barn.
He also forced (although really they chose themselves) the GOP to rip off the mask of financial conservatism, moral values, and character.
We've basically turned our federal government into the election from O Brother Where Art Thou?. The semi-corrupt, bloated establishment or the bigoted, false savior of the citizens. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Trump is racist like the Homer Stokes character was (although some of his base certainly is whether they are willing to admit it or not). He's just a
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to think a third party would have a chance as well, but alas, I fear I shall never see it. I'm Republican, but voted Libertarian in the last election because neither Trump nor SOS Clinton were fit to govern in my opinion. Johnson/Weld were both Republicans who had governed Democratic states and were both re-elected till term limited with higher margins in the second election than the first. Doesn't get much more centrist that that. And they got no traction at all. Until the election system moves to
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe that will be a problem. I'm convened that if he actually runs again he will win 2020 in a land slide. But I could be wrong. Clinton felt she had it in the bag in 2016 and look where that went.
But there is the key word, "if". I'm not sure that he will run again in 2020. I'm still not convinced that his whole president thing wasn't just a check on his bucket list.
I've noticed one thing, while he is hinting around about it, he hasn't formally announced his plans to run again.
Re: (Score:3)
Use the abuse flag to flag these toll mods as abuse. This problem needs to be corrected on those doing this need to have their mod priv suspended.
So... No irony on how you stated that you're "Pissing off the snowflakes" and then whine about THIS one post later? Sounds like snowflake behavior right there.
Re: (Score:3)
What ever you want to believe but then again why is practically everyone says some thing that agrees with me being labeled troll and flamebait too?
Yes, there is clearly mod abuse going on here. It has been a problem across several months. Some thing need to be done about. Flaging it for abuse is the only option we have.
Back to the topic at hand.
Re: (Score:3)
Use the abuse flag to flag these toll mods as abuse. This problem needs to be corrected on those doing this need to have their mod priv suspended.
Well now you can clearly see the mod trolls don't want my suggestion to get out. They might lose their power if Slashdot actually started doing what I suggest.
Personally I don't think any one with less than 10 years on /. should be allowed to moderate.
Re: (Score:3)
In the name of comedians worldwide.
That is them most disappointing thing about this presidency. We have had 4 years of comedy gold from both sides. But no one has really take advantage of it. George Carlen would have killed for such material to work with.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? I've never found Colbert to be all that funny. Even before Trump. Just personal tastes I guess. But that is fine, not many people found John Steward all that funny but I thought he was great.
Re: (Score:3)
Please explain further why Trump now has 2020 in the bag?
Politics are complex while Clinton Impeachment was a loss to the GOP, it was mostly due to Clinton a generally popular president being impeached over a personal matter. Which he did lie under oath about and shouldn't have done so, but it was on an topic he shouldn't had to deal with. While the GOP suffered in some areas on it, it did lead to George W Bush winning over Al Gore, due to the Clinton Baggage that Gore inherited.
In contrast Trump is an unp
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Informative)
Not while violating Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution or Article II, Section 4 of the constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
Politics is relevant to nerds. Major political events are covered here, and I like that.
As ever, feel free to scroll past this one if you don't like it. Such stories are pretty rare.
Re:Is there any techie value to this article? (Score:5, Insightful)
My theory:
A quick look at the number of replies this article gets tells you exactly why this story was posted. Remember how the History Channel used to be about... well... history, and then some MBA genius figured out that reality shows are actually much more profitable, and suddenly no more actual history shows. Granted, they're making more money, but for folks like me that actually LIKED history shows, it was a huge loss.
That's why you see articles about politics and climate change. They're contentious topics, and generate lots of views and replies, which translates into more advertising dollars. I would prefer to focus on tech topics (even though yes, I'm obviously reading this article, so...), but it's clear I'm in the minority on that opinion. But every time a topic like this generates a lot of replies, we're pretty much validating that it was the correct decision - short term, at least.
Long term? I may end up just giving up on Slashdot if it strays too far away from the topics I'm interested in. I suspect many have already done that.
Re:Is there any techie value to this article? (Score:5, Informative)
Long term? I may end up just giving up on Slashdot if it strays too far away from the topics I'm interested in. I suspect many have already done that.
Many have already done that for the exact reason you state and created a place attempting to get back "on track"...
https://soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org]
Re: (Score:3)
You probably don't remember seeing your high UID, but in 2001 i first learned about the plane hitting the twin towers in new york from the radio on the way to work, and assumed it was a small commuter plane. Then when i got to work, the slashdot article dropped and thats where i learned the true extent of it.
So this isn't like a new thing. Look back in slashdot history. The iraq war being announced, plenty of bush articles after he got elected, etc.
slashdot has always had a political component with the news
Re: (Score:3)
I've been on Slashdot a long time (don't let my UserID fool you, this is my third account- I use throw away e-mails to register for things and forget passwords).
As far as I can recall there has always been a "stuff that matters" component to the "news for nerds and stuff that matters". It may be slightly more prevalent today than 15 years ago, but it's always been there. People have complained about it for a decade or more too, saying the site was better a few years ago. In a few years people will be say
Re: (Score:3)
That's why you see articles about politics and climate change.
Climate change is clearly a science issue. I always viewed the science portion of /. an important aspect of it because science news isn't always covered in more traditional news outlets. Also, those are the stories where I actually learn things from the comments. The tech stories don't interest me that much anymore unless they're about something new and novel.
I have to admit, though, that like others I comment a lot more on the political stories than any other genre. It's probably because we all believe in
Re: (Score:3)
I am having a hard time caring about the whole impeachment thing.
I mean, sure, Trump has probably done things to merit impeachment, and I guess I "support" it. But unless there's something really dramatic that shows up -- way more than anything that is public right now -- we all know that any vote will end up going down along party lines and he'll stay in office. And if by some miracle he is impeached, he gets replaced by .... Mike Pence. Yeah, that's such an improvement.
I don't think an inquiry into Tr
Re: (Score:3)
Granted, it's not my decision to make, but that was
Re:Smooth Move (Score:5, Insightful)
What?! Did you forget your tinfoil hat?
Only Democrats could force a release of a document that once again points out how inept Meuller was
If we learned anything it's that the Mueller report showed that Congress needs to step up to the plate. Also, I hardly consider all of the indictments that the investigation turned up as a loss. I wish everyone would stop looking at it as "He didn't get the President, thus a complete loss." That just sells more stock into the far left narrative of Muller was going to handcuff the President and toss him in a slammer. The report led to several indictments and gave word for word proof that Russia was attempting to meddle in our elections, of which, we've only recently made headway into addressing. Mueller took the standard DOJ reading of the law that it's up to Congress to hold the President accountable. They chose not to do so, and that ends the story. But let us not forget a very critical part of that report.
If we had confidence Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so
That's a very clear, "Well, the ball is in your court Congress." To which Congress decided to drop it. So if you want to go after something, go after Congress for dropping the follow through, but the report is exactly what it is and nothing more. Only the super far left and super far right thought massive repercussions were ever going to come form it.
and at the same timer shows that Trump was not guilty of any Russian collusion
Well that's somewhat true, but not in the exactly comforting way. The report showed that the term was too inept to understand how the Russians were trying to reach them. And perhaps being too stupid was the saving grace, but it points out something troublesome and something worth considering for either side of the aisle. Russians are reaching into the internal affairs of the US and who knows which smarter than Trump's election crew, has prior decided to take a helping hand. But that's the entire point of these kinds of reports, to see how it is carried out and attempt to make measures to counter them. While Trump's team didn't accept help from Russians it showed that Russians were constantly trying to reach out and emails and appointment mishaps, not some moral clarity, were the things that prevented them from happening. You're putting an unrealistic measure on a single report that no report could have ever measured up to, and you aren't the only one. The crazy left side was super banking on the report to be a make or break and that was stupid. I'm so tired of everything having to be a make or break, why can't we just have reports that inform us and that be the end of it? In the end, if Congress is so reluctant to do anything in the name of justice, it won't matter what kind of report comes from who.
Oh and the absolute capper is that it was Ukraine that asked Trumpe about Biden first, so now everyone is going to find out how Biden was, along with Hillary, deeply corruptly info,ved with Russia. Biden is done.
You are going to have to cite source on that. Because all of the information that is out in the public at this time does not point to that conclusion. So either you've got information that states otherwise or you're making a wild conjecture that fits some narrative in your head. Why can't we just lets see where the investigation goes and go from there? Why do people feel so compelled to have some thermonuclear conclusion to everything? Not everything is some massive spy-craft novella. The vast majority of it is a yawn at best.
On a side note, the other funny thing about this is Biden involvement with Russia was how the DNC originally planned to eject Biden to clear the way for Warren, the actual pick they had selected a year or two ago. Trump just beat them to it and they are PISSED he will get credit for cleaning that up.
Did you even read what you type
Re:Smooth Move (Score:4, Interesting)
Thanks for a very neutral explanation. I think a lot of people need to breathe, read something like that, and then get on with their lives.
Politics is mostly boring crap and really I wish we'd all stop trying to make it into a soap opera.
Too bad that there's money to be made by doing that. A large percent of people love to see drama. That's why soap operas exist in the first place! Our newstainment channels have out-competed the more factual news channels by bringing this drama to the news. People had the choice to watch boring, factual news or emotionally manipulative and seizure-inducing newstainment, and they by and large went with the newstainment. That lead the newstainment industry to cater to certain niches of people to ensure that they had a captive audience.
Panels of people dramatically screaming at each other and cutting each other off. Flashy graphics of the next thing that IS A THREAT TO OUR VERY EXISTENCE!!! Artificially drawing us-vs-them lines in the sand, making purity tests for "the tribe".
In just my lifetime I've gone from seeing most people generally apathetic about politics to almost everyone being in a camp of some kind. Social media and the newstainment industry are probably responsible for a good 2/3 of this divide. I think the other 1/3 is our first-past-the-post voting and the resulting two party system. If we had a half dozen parties, I'm guessing that they all would be a little less intense. And that would be a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't a slightly more obvious and simpler interpretation that Trump appears to have abused the office of President of the United States for his own benefit, and the Democrats are hoping to do to him what he did to Clinton?
Expect chants of "lock him up" and last minute FBI investigations in the lead up to the 2020 election. I think the Democrats are finally realizing that taking the moral high road doesn't get you very far in US politics.
Meuller (sic) was anything but inept (Score:3)
If you read the report his conclusion was that Trump didn't collude because Trump couldn't figure out _how_ to collude. They couldn't get a hold of anyone in Russia to collude with. Trump and his team would have literally had to have been smarter to do something dumb (Dilbert reference).
And none of that mattered because Mueller found 10 counts of
Re: (Score:3)
Trump conducted that call perfectly by making the discussion about international cooperation with investigations to be carried out by competent legal authorities in both countries.
This assessment would only make sense if Trump wasn't also holding back aid to Ukraine contingent on investigating a very specific alleged crime. This is by the book selective enforcement.
Re: (Score:3)
Trying to get a foreign government to do your dirty work to go after your likely political rival in an upcoming election makes it extra illegal, and my read of that transcript brings up the possibility of a solicitation of a bribe or extortion on top of the abuse of