Another Whistleblower complaint. This time from an IRS employee.

1. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 20 months ago

   This story says it all. It's obvious to those of us who deal in facts Trump is terrified of his tax returns being revealed. Of course he lied about releasing his tax returns during his campaign, and he has fought tooth and nail to prevent them ever coming to light. Wonder why?
   
   I'll wager anything from 41 to a $1000 he's in hock to Russia, Saudi Arabia, or both. Any takers? Make it light on yourself!
   
   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … spartanntp

   replyreport
   1. 90

      MizBejabbersposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Im not going to take your bet. Trump is terrified that his jig is up already and is making noises to deflect attention from him. That's how the government caught Al Capone, you know. If they can't catch a crook one way, just audit his taxes.

      replyreport
   2. 90

      My Esotericposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      No doubt in my mind.

      replyreport
2. 78

   Live to Learnposted 20 months ago

   If the democrats prevail and take down Trump, I'm pretty sure the next time a Democrat takes the oval office I won't be inclined to defend fairness and non-partisanship when tit for tat begins.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      lobobrandonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      I've only seen people targetting an individual here, not a party. If Trump goes down, it's still a Republican who's going to be president, right?

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Live to Learnposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         Targeting an individual, repeatedly, for political gain. Short on facts, overloaded with vitriol, obvious lies and subterfuge.
         
         In many ways it's good. It is showcasing what everyone has grown sick of in Washington.
         
         My point is, if the American public is going to use personal opinion of their like or dislike of an individual, ignoring policy and progress for the economy to selectively decide who gets the benefit of fair play; as far as politicians are concerned I won't be concerned about fair play when they ridiculously demonize another individual.
         
         This has surpassed any reality I could have imagined and stumbled into the realm of surreal.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            hard sunposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            This is the problem. How can you expect, what most people see as a reprehensible human being, to lead a country? Such people have difficulties leading a small business. Trump demonizes himself with his behavior. Now, do I think the media always treats him fairly? Of course not. How can you when he's dubbed you the enemy of the people? At any rate, if the R's had put someone in who wasn't one hundred percent trash and a TOTAL crook who clearly has other priorities beyond being President, we wouldn't have all these complaints. Just maybe he has all these complaints because the shoe fits. Say what you want about Obama or Bush, but there is no way either of those men are the trash that Trump is...and it shows.

            replyreport
         2. 91

            lobobrandonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            I would not say they are targetting without facts when the person they are targetting is the one proudly claiming to have done the things he is being accused of. Also, opinions don't really matter, the facts are being looked into.
            
            Also, something from Reddit which I find true, do you disagree?:
            
            BEGIN QUOTE
            
            Same old pattern.
            
            Trump: does bad thing
            
            Someone: "Hey uh, the President did a bad thing..."
            
            Supporters / GOP: "Nah bro, the President would never do that."
            
            Trump: "I DID IT"
            
            Supporters / GOP: "Oh. Well it's not a big deal anyway."
            
            People: "Uh, it's kind of a big deal, though..."
            
            Supporters / GOP: "Well who can keep track of all these rules anyway? It's not like he's purposely doing bad things."
            
            Trump: "I'D DO IT AGAIN."

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 20 months agoin reply to this

               You could add "and then Trump does it again."

               replyreport
               1. 91

                  lobobrandonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  Haha, of course, I would had I been the one who wrote it

                  replyreport
            2. 78

               Live to Learnposted 20 months agoin reply to this

               Hey. Is that you Adam Schiff?

               replyreport
               1. 91

                  lobobrandonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  Haha, if you don't see this happening in front of your eyes, I'm sorry.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                     Intentional blindness seems to be rightwing malady...

                     replyreport
      2. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         Not necessarily, Bando, if Pence is caught up in the Ukraine mess, then the speaker of the house--Pelosi--would become POTUS.

         replyreport
         1. 91

            lobobrandonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, I do know that, but I was countering the point that the people were only doing this out of spite for a particular "party".

            replyreport
         2. 90

            My Esotericposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            I’ll start believing in the Christian version of God if that happens.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 20 months agoin reply to this

               And those on the right will know Satan is in charge! 

               replyreport
      3. 90

         MizBejabbersposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         Not necessarily. If Pence is implicated, and he is being investigated for his role in the Ukraine fiasco, he will be out also. The next in line is the Speaker of the House, and wouldn't that chap some GOP's behinds.

         replyreport
         1. 91

            lobobrandonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Yup, but as I replied to Randy, the point was that the target is on Trump, if others are implicated it is how it is. There's no party targetting.

            replyreport
   2. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Likewise, if a Democratic president demands a foreign country investigate a Republican political rival in exchange for receiving Congressionally appropriated funds, that will be a-okay with you.
      
      If Trump can abuse his presidential power in this way, anyone can, right?

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Live to Learnposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         As far as the Ukraine incident is concerned, the transcript doesn't support the accusations. What I find hilarious is that the front runner for the democratic party actually did what Trump is being accused of, as far as quid pro quo is concerned. The Obama administration did exactly what Trump is accused of, as regards using a foreign government to work against a political rival.
         
         I don't know about the topic of this OP, but I've heard wolf cried often enough to be suspicious.
         
         Is your desire to take down a sitting president because of your dismay at not getting Hillary instead so all consuming that you can't see the insanity?
         
         What will you do if the democrats win the next presidential election, the Republican party wins the House and we see this circus start all over again?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Have you seen the news this morning? A little thing about text messages....
            
            The circus is nothing new. Trump, however, has brought us to unparalleled heights of lunacy. We can't even call him and his cabal "clowns" anymore. Clowns are too smart. Mafia Don is as stupid a corrupt president as he is a businessman.

            replyreport
         2. 90

            My Esotericposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Then you haven’t read the transcript have you?  Or, listened to Trump admit it all b

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Live to Learnposted 20 months agoin reply to this

               I've read the transcript. Not with ingrained bias skewing the view. But, I hear there are texts. I need to find them, just them, without some pundit leaning whatever way they do. If there is a smoking gun there; then that's different.

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  hard sunposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache … -03-19.pdf
                  
                  The texts start with the attachment on page 4. Though I should point out this has nothing to do with the IRS thing but rather the Ukrainian thing.

                  replyreport
               2. 90

                  My Esotericposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  "I have a favor to ask, though" (to quote Trump to Z as he asks him to investigate the Bidens)
                  
                  Read the Texts - it is a slam dunk from here.  Ask yourself - why did Sondland tell Taylor to "Call Me" rather than simply respond "No".?
                  
                  https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics … index.html

                  replyreport
                  1. 91

                     GA Andersonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                     I am wondering about your enthusiasm regarding the text messages. I don't see any damage to Pres. Trump or his efforts.
                     
                     Mention was made of: 2016 election, no quid pro quo, and one texter, (Bill Taylor), was quickly informed the president was firm that there be no quid pro quo when he mentioned it.
                     
                     What am I missing? I sure don't see your slam dunk. Contrarily, I see a confirmation of Pres. Trump's declarations that this is about 2016 corruption, not 2020 election interference.
                     
                     Which of the texts do you think are "slam dunk" proofs of Trump's guilt?
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 90

                        My Esotericposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                        Tell me GA,
                        
                        1. Why, on 7/21, before the call, did Taylor say "Gordon, one thing Kurt and I talked about yesterday was Sasha Danyliuk’s point that President Zelenskyy is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics." IF Ukraine wasn't already being pressured to hunt for dirt to help Trump with his "domestic, reelection politics"?
                        
                        2. Why was was the issue of withholding aid until Ukraine promised to get involved in our election (keep in mind that quid pro quo is not an element of the crime Trump is committing in getting foreign help to throw the election in his favor)
                        
                        2.  Why didn't Sondland, on 9/1) simply say "NO!" when Taylor asked " Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?" 
                        
                        3.  Why did Sondland say "Call Me" rather than give the obvious answer that the meeting WAS NOT "conditioned on investigations"?
                        
                        4.  Why did Taylor even ask that question if it wasn't a concern.
                        
                        5.  Why, on 9/8, did Taylor say "The nightmare is they give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.) " if there wasn't talk of holding aide up until Trump got the help with the election that he wanted?
                        
                        6. Why, on 9/9, did Taylor say "The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key. WITH THE HOLD ON, we have already shaken their faith in us. Thus my nightmare scenario."?
                        
                        7.  Why did Taylor say a little later (9/9) "As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign." ?
                        
                        Please don't be obtuse, GA, you are better than that.

                        replyreport
                        1. 91

                           GA Andersonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                           I am getting a sense of deja vu. I think I might have already answered these questions. It must have been on another thread.
                           
                           Obtuse? If so it is unintentional. I can only hope your perception is wrong.
                           
                           To your first question, it appears that President Zelenski may have thought it was about election politics. I can see that as a strong possibility.
                           
                           However, Sondland, as the EU Ambassador responded that he understood that possibility, (my interpretation of "absolutely" and "irrespective") but stressed the importance of building a relationship between the two presidents beyond the apparent pretext of this first issue.
                           
                           Further, Ambassador Volker explicitly stated that perception was unacceptable, the focus must be on 2016 issues.
                           
                           Next, your first #2, what do you read in the texts that says that was the case?
                           
                           To your second #2 & #3, why is Ambassador Soundland saying "No" not unequivocal enough for you? Could the simple explanation be that a phone call would be more appropriate for a detailed explanation?
                           
                           For #4 it appears the appearance that there was a linkage was a concern. But as with the prior questions, Envoy Taylor's thoughts were addressed by Ambassador Soundland - calling them incorrect. Once more we are dealing with perceptions that are clearly clarified as not the purpose or intention of the ongoing efforts.
                           
                           Regarding #5, you are weighting your question on Envoy Talor's concerns, which had already been addressed as not the effort's intentions. I don't see evidence of Taylor speaking of "talk of," I see him speaking of his perception.
                           
                           What was the reason for "the hold" mentioned? Do you know? I don't.
                           
                           And finally, for the third time in your questions, it was one man, Envoy Taylor, that expressed this concern, and as previously noted, Ambassador Sondland explicitly told him his perception was "incorrect."
                           
                           Hopefully, my effort to not be obtuse was successful Scott, but if you still think my efforts to explain are such, then so be it.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Don Wposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                              If a drug dealer referred only to "the deliverable" on the phone, that wouldn't invalidate his calls being used as evidence of drug dealing.
                              
                              Likewise, the fact that Sondland (a hotelier with no government experience prior to him donating $1 million to Trump and getting appointed US ambassador to the EU) referred to "the deliverable" and said Taylor (a career diplomat of 42 years) was wrong in his characterization of the situation, does not invalidate the use of those texts as evidence of a quid pro quo.
                              
                              A prosecutor would simply advise a court that "the deliverable" was code for drugs, or in this case a Biden investigation. I know we're not discussing a court case, but the same principle applies.
                              
                              So I think your perception that these texts  don't do "...any damage to Pres. Trump or his efforts" is a misperception. These texts do, can (and likely will) form part of a body of circumstantial evidence, outside of the Trump-Zelensky call itself, that demonstrates a pattern of behavior from which we can reasonably conclude there was quid pro quo at the heart of this sordid affair.

                              replyreport
                              1. 91

                                 GA Andersonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                                 Ain't Baskin-Robbins great. A flavor for everyone.
                                 
                                 GA

                                 replyreport
   3. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      You don't seem to support "fairness and non-partisanship" now, so why would you later on?

      replyreport
   4. 90

      My Esotericposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      I am sorry Live, but your blind support for such an obviously flawed, amoral, unethical, criminal is impossible for my mind to comprehend. You give the same kind of unthinking belief in your leader that Hitler defenders have to him. And yes, it is hard for an outside observer to tell the difference between the two men.
      
      It is very scary to me that that kind of devotion to a demagogue even exists in America today.

      replyreport
   5. 90

      MizBejabbersposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      You have a short memory. This is kind of tit for tat over the witch hunt for Bill Clinton. In Republicans' eyes, a little personal adultery is much worse than continued violation of national security.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         My Esotericposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         Amen!!

         replyreport
      2. 78

         Live to Learnposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         Bill Clinton was not the president before Trump. If they want to go the impeachment route they need to follow the rules. Bring it to a vote. If they don't, that says it all.

         replyreport
3. 91

   lobobrandonposted 20 months ago

   Trump blowing his own whistle: https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1 … 0827503617

   replyreport