Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And why won’t they release the entire whistleblower complaint to congress? That is fishy right there.

It will be released.
The reason it was held back......IC Whistleblower complaints are supposed to be limited to complaints within the IC. This wasn't limited to within the IC.

Riiight. That's the reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As bad as the transcript looks for Trump and his friends, the complaint must look much worse. And the IC IG concurs.

Truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pelosi just admitted to not seeing the transcript, yet continued to condemn the president based on a transcript she has not read.

She is looking more and more idiotic with each statement.

The Democrats are desperate because they are fearful that not one of their candidates cannot beat Trump.

But every major news outlet has read the transcript, which is short, and I have read it, and I can tell you - it's over.

It's just a summary of a transcript, yes?

No.

The version I saw says it's a memorandum of a telephone conversation, not a transcript. This is what I'm referring to:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uyWKAGgHIqDEORgjOyo0uq7JOXzhxOQf/view

So PP says there is an actual transcript? Link?

[Anonymous]

was this written right after the call or was the publicly released document edited recently?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:read the WAPO summary of the phone call, not enough there to impeach. - lib

It's a critical piece of information, where the President asks another country's leader to investigate a political opponent. The other part of the puzzle is Trump's order to withhold aid before the call.
Put the two together and you have an impeachable offense.

Nope.

And, what the president did in relation to an investigation is NO DIFFERENT than what several Senators did - in a letter.
Are we going after them too?

The Senators are not running for the Presidency and Biden is not their direct political rival for the Presidency. Your equivalency is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As bad as the transcript looks for Trump and his friends, the complaint must look much worse. And the IC IG concurs.

And, let's remember... A complaint does not equal facts. Just because a "whistleblower" states something, doesn't make it true.
Now, we need to hear from the whistleblower. Who did he/she talk to to learn about this phone call? What motivations does this person have?

The accusation surrounding the initial charge - that Trump withheld money from Ukraine on the condition of an investigation into Biden - does not hold up. Not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pelosi just admitted to not seeing the transcript, yet continued to condemn the president based on a transcript she has not read.

She is looking more and more idiotic with each statement.

The Democrats are desperate because they are fearful that not one of their candidates cannot beat Trump.

But every major news outlet has read the transcript, which is short, and I have read it, and I can tell you - it's over.

It's just a summary of a transcript, yes?

No.

The version I saw says it's a memorandum of a telephone conversation, not a transcript. This is what I'm referring to:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uyWKAGgHIqDEORgjOyo0uq7JOXzhxOQf/view

So PP says there is an actual transcript? Link?

People are calling "transcript", the memorandum of the telephone conversation. We all have the same document you are referring to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pelosi just admitted to not seeing the transcript, yet continued to condemn the president based on a transcript she has not read.

She is looking more and more idiotic with each statement.

The Democrats are desperate because they are fearful that not one of their candidates cannot beat Trump.

But every major news outlet has read the transcript, which is short, and I have read it, and I can tell you - it's over.

It's just a summary of a transcript, yes?

It's the official document written by the professionals assigned to record official conversations. So there may be a word substituted for another, or something marked "inaudible" if the line was bad or the accent too heavy (not on this one), but usually they're very accurate.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6429010/Unclassified09-2019.pdf

"CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a
discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty
"Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned t_o listen.and memorialize the conversation in written form
as the conversation takes place. A numper of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the reco?d,
including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation.
The word "inaudible" is used to indifate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable
to hear. "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As bad as the transcript looks for Trump and his friends, the complaint must look much worse. And the IC IG concurs.

And, let's remember... A complaint does not equal facts. Just because a "whistleblower" states something, doesn't make it true.
Now, we need to hear from the whistleblower. Who did he/she talk to to learn about this phone call? What motivations does this person have?

The accusation surrounding the initial charge - that Trump withheld money from Ukraine on the condition of an investigation into Biden - does not hold up. Not even close.

It is what the Ukrainian government thought this summer, and there are witnesses to their concerns. Also, no one needs a direct threat in so many words. Withholding aid was a surprise to all officials in all government agencies. No one could figure out why the aid was not being sent until this scandal broke out in the open. The timing is enough, in this scenario, to conclude that the withholding was a nefarious tool to pressure the Ukrainian government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all of you claiming the transcript shows pressure by Trump on Ukraine, show me paragraph by paragraph.

The facts are the President did his job and I, for one, can't wait to hear much more.

My recommendation: Boomerang use training stat.

Quote has already been posted up-thread.

[Anonymous]

So is this memorandum related to the whistle blower or separate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As bad as the transcript looks for Trump and his friends, the complaint must look much worse. And the IC IG concurs.

And, let's remember... A complaint does not equal facts. Just because a "whistleblower" states something, doesn't make it true.
Now, we need to hear from the whistleblower. Who did he/she talk to to learn about this phone call? What motivations does this person have?

The accusation surrounding the initial charge - that Trump withheld money from Ukraine on the condition of an investigation into Biden - does not hold up. Not even close.

It is what the Ukrainian government thought this summer, and there are witnesses to their concerns. Also, no one needs a direct threat in so many words. Withholding aid was a surprise to all officials in all government agencies. No one could figure out why the aid was not being sent until this scandal broke out in the open. The timing is enough, in this scenario, to conclude that the withholding was a nefarious tool to pressure the Ukrainian government.

I feel like everyone is getting wound up over whether there is a quid pro quo. There doesn't need to be a quid pro quo. There also doesn't need to be a crime for impeachment - that's not the standard we hold our President to. If the President asks a foreign leader for material assistance to his political campaign, that's enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As bad as the transcript looks for Trump and his friends, the complaint must look much worse. And the IC IG concurs.

And, let's remember... A complaint does not equal facts. Just because a "whistleblower" states something, doesn't make it true.
Now, we need to hear from the whistleblower. Who did he/she talk to to learn about this phone call? What motivations does this person have?

The accusation surrounding the initial charge - that Trump withheld money from Ukraine on the condition of an investigation into Biden - does not hold up. Not even close.

The IC IG concurred with the whistleblower's complaint. That lends more credence to the complaint being factual than not. Why do you doubt the IC IG?

And remember, the phone call is only part of the complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As bad as the transcript looks for Trump and his friends, the complaint must look much worse. And the IC IG concurs.

And, let's remember... A complaint does not equal facts. Just because a "whistleblower" states something, doesn't make it true.
Now, we need to hear from the whistleblower. Who did he/she talk to to learn about this phone call? What motivations does this person have?

The accusation surrounding the initial charge - that Trump withheld money from Ukraine on the condition of an investigation into Biden - does not hold up. Not even close.

It is what the Ukrainian government thought this summer, and there are witnesses to their concerns. Also, no one needs a direct threat in so many words. Withholding aid was a surprise to all officials in all government agencies. No one could figure out why the aid was not being sent until this scandal broke out in the open. The timing is enough, in this scenario, to conclude that the withholding was a nefarious tool to pressure the Ukrainian government.

I feel like everyone is getting wound up over whether there is a quid pro quo. There doesn't need to be a quid pro quo. There also doesn't need to be a crime for impeachment - that's not the standard we hold our President to. If the President asks a foreign leader for material assistance to his political campaign, that's enough.

This! Rs are trying to make it about quid pro quo and it does not have to be a stated quid pro quo to be impeachable and despicable.

[Anonymous]

I cannot believe the White House thought releasing this transcript would help them. This is so bad.