To be fair, I don’t know why the DNI didn’t disclose the memo. But I think there are at least 2 possible reasons why he didn’t do so. 1) because the DNI is being coerced by the Whitehouse or otherwise hiding it from public scrutiny, or 2) Because it is in fact not a cause for concern. I’m erring towards 2 because these sorts of non-scandals have been par for the course over the last 3 years.

What did Trump do wrong? You said you don’t know. If you don’t know what Trump did wrong, how do you know he did something wrong? — NOS4A2

I didn’t say I don’t know what Trump did wrong. I said I don’t know what law, if any, is broken if the accusations are true. But whatever happened is significant enough that the Inspector General considers it urgent and the White House considers it damaging enough to order the DNI to not comply with their legal requirements.

Now tell me why you think this is just Dems inventing fake crimes.

Now tell me why you think this is just Dems inventing fake crimes.

I already told you why but you suspiciously refused to quote it.

It's being alleged by the the Wall Street Journal (and others) that Trump "pressured" (their word) Ukraine eight times to investigate Joe Biden's son. That alone, had it happened under any President's watch, would be a presidency-defining scandal.

IF it's the case that Trump dangled military-aid as a carrot or stick to get Ukraine to investigate a potential political opponent, Trump will be impeached and convicted in the Senate. This isn't some murky campaign finance violation nobody understands. This would be using tax-payer dollars to pressure another country to investigate a political opponent. That's easily understandable and also happens to be indefensible. There might be a few Senators who would go on record in an impeachment trial saying that that behavior is OK, but there aren't 30 of them.

IF it's the case that Trump dangled military-aid as a carrot or stick to get Ukraine to investigate a potential political opponent, Trump will be impeached and convicted in the Senate. This isn't some murky campaign finance violation nobody understands. This would be using tax-payer dollars to pressure another country to investigate a political opponent. That's easily understandable and also happens to be indefensible. There might be a few Senators who would go on record in an impeachment trial saying that that behavior is OK, but there aren't 30 of them. — RogueAI

You have more faith than me.

It's being alleged by the the Wall Street Journal (and others) that Trump "pressured" (their word) Ukraine eight times to investigate Joe Biden's son. That alone, had it happened under any President's watch, would be a presidency-defining scandal.

It seems to me prudent to want to investigate the possible corruption of the US government.

IF it's the case that Trump dangled military-aid as a carrot or stick to get Ukraine to investigate a potential political opponent, Trump will be impeached and convicted in the Senate. This isn't some murky campaign finance violation nobody understands. This would be using tax-payer dollars to pressure another country to investigate a political opponent. That's easily understandable and also happens to be indefensible. There might be a few Senators who would go on record in an impeachment trial saying that that behavior is OK, but there aren't 30 of them.

Biden was the vice-president of the United States during when the alleged corruption occurred. The notion that he is doing it to “investigate a political opponent”, and not the corruption of which his political opponent and former vice-president might be guilty, is invented whole cloth without evidence.

You have more faith than me.

I don't know. Maybe they would be that craven. I have my doubts, though. I think a lot of these Republican Senators are at the end of their rope when it comes to Trump and are looking for a good reason to bail. This would be that reason.

The problem with this is, if Trump really did use military aid that way, wouldn't his whole administration have ground to a halt? I can't believe someone like James Mattis or Dan Coats would be silent about something like that. And yet we have this whistleblower, who, according to the IG, has a serious complaint. Fascinating.

It seems to me prudent to want to investigate the possible corruption of the US government.

By Ukranians??? Uh, no. America is perfectly capable of investigating it's people. Trump wasn't asking for Ukranian help in an ongoing U.S. investigation. He was pressuring Ukraine to do an investigation. On someone who happens to be the son of his political opponent. I know you're smart enough to see the problem here.

And if there was a quid-pro-quo involving military funding, the Democrats will impeach. They might anyway, just if the WSJ reporting is accurate. And this isn't something that's hard to get to the bottom of, like the Mueller fiasco. The transcript of the call and the whistleblower's report will tell us everything.

Biden was the vice-president of the United States during when the alleged corruption occurred. The notion that he is doing it to “investigate a political opponent”, and not the corruption of which his political opponent and former vice-president might be guilty, is invented whole cloth without evidence.

That's why we have a DOJ. We don't outsource our investigations to countries like Ukraine. This Biden story has been around for years. You think a Republican DOJ wouldn't pounce on a chance to nail someone like Biden? Of course they would. If there was anything there, we would have heard about it by now.

Which is why I have trouble with this story. If Trump really did use military funding as a quid-pro-quo, we're just hearing about it now? Wouldn't that have been leaked to the press by a bunch of people?

By Ukranians??? Uh, no. America is perfectly capable of investigating it's people. Trump wasn't asking for Ukranian help in an ongoing U.S. investigation. He was pressuring Ukraine to do an investigation. On someone who happens to be the son of his political opponent. I know you're smart enough to see the problem here.

And if there was a quid-pro-quo involving military funding, the Democrats will impeach. They might anyway, just if the WSJ reporting is accurate. And this isn't something that's hard to get to the bottom of, like the Mueller fiasco. The transcript of the call and the whistleblower's report will tell us everything.

Yes, the alleged corruption between Biden, then vice-president of the US, and his son was committed in and with Ukraine during the Obama administration. The alleged crimes occurred in Ukraine and with the Ukrainian government. I know you’re smart enough to see the problem here.

Yes, the alleged corruption between Biden, then vice-president of the US, and his son was committed in and with Ukraine during the Obama administration. The alleged crimes occurred in Ukraine and with the Ukrainian government. I know you’re smart enough to see the problem here.

There IS a prima facia problem there. The NY Times and New Yorker have been covering it for about a year now.

But you seem to have missed the point: WE (America) are perfectly capable of investigating our own politicians. We have credible justice institutions that go back a long long time. Ukraine is barely a country. WHY would we EVER outsource an investigation to a country like Ukraine?

The answer is simple: we wouldn't. You don't have to defend everything this guy does. You realize that, right?

It seems to me prudent to want to investigate the possible corruption of the US government — NOS4A2

I don't know if this is a thing where you live, but the US Constitution establishes the "separation of powers" as a core principle. You might want to read up on that.

There IS a prima facia problem there. The NY Times and New Yorker have been covering it for about a year now.

But you seem to have missed the point: WE (America) are perfectly capable of investigating our own politicians. We have credible justice institutions that go back a long long time. Ukraine is barely a country. WHY would we EVER outsource an investigation to a country like Ukraine?

The answer is simple: we wouldn't. You don't have to defend everything this guy does. You realize that, right?

Trump urged the Ukrainian president to work with Guilliani , who was being facilitated by the US State Dept. in his efforts.

America wants to know if the former vice-president was abusing his power for reasons of corruption, and if the DNC colluded with Ukraine to influence the 2016 election.

Then tell me, which branch of the government has the most power in the field of international relations? I believe I know the answer, but am willing to admit my ignorance.

Trump urged the Ukrainian president to work with Guilliani , who was being facilitated by the US State Dept. in his efforts — NOS4A2

Last I checked, Guiliani was a private individual and Trump's lawyer. Whatever the position of the US State Dept. (part of the executive branch), his investigation is a private matter.

Then tell me, which branch of the government has the most power in the field of international relations? — NOS4A2

The executive. Under the doctrine of separation of powers, it is not supposed to use this power to assume judicial functions

Last I checked, Guiliani was a private individual and Trump's lawyer. Whatever the position of the US State Dept. (part of the executive branch), his investigation is a private matter.

But the state department set up the meetings and assisted the efforts, and by some reports, encouraged Guilliani to investigate.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/giuliani-says-state-dept-aided-his-effort-press-ukraine-trump-n1045171

The executive. Under the doctrine of separation of powers, it is not supposed to use this power to assume judicial functions

Correct, and thepresident can basically say whatever he wants to foreign leaders. The so-called whistleblower didn’t even have direct knowledge of the communications anyways, so maybe some scepticism is in order instead of blind faith.

But the state department set up the meetings and assisted the efforts, and by some reports, encouraged Guilliani to investigate. — NOS4A2

That article set off so many red flags I googled the author. Guess what type of bias he is known for?

Anyways, the state dept is part of the executive. It does not have authority to assign Rudy Guliani as an investigator on behalf of "America".

Correct, and thepresident can basically say whatever he wants to foreign leaders. — NOS4A2

So, the president is above the law and the constitution when he talks to foreign leaders. Interesting.

That article set off so many red flags I googled the author. Guess what type of bias he is known for?

Anyways, the state dept is part of the executive. It does not have authority to assign Rudy Guliani as an investigator on behalf of "America".

That would be a genetic fallacy, dismissing a report based on where it comes from and not on its merits. Is this how you avoid exculpatory evidence? It is an opinion piece, no doubt. But it raises a great point: the State Department actually asked Rudy Giuliani to contact the lawyer for Ukraine’s president.

Why is this never mentioned?

So, the president is above the law and the constitution when he talks to foreign leaders. Interesting.

No, he’s fully within the law and the constitution is what I’m arguing. No need to twist it anymore than you’ve already tried.

So, the president is above the law — Echarmion

According to recent reports, Trump is arguing that as president, he cannot even be investigated! Question: self-defense, at law, is not-so-simple. The basic concept is, but the how and when and circumstances are the distinctions that make a difference. As such, acts of self-defense are often scrutinized and judged, and folks who thought they were defending themselves find themselves charged with and sometimes convicted of murder. And imo, this is exactly right. Self-defense can in a second turn into murder. And thus are established bounds on what constitutes self-defense, beyond which the defense becomes a crime.

But if and when the law explicitly removes itself from the arena, then what bounds self-defense? Ans.: nothing. The president "above the law"? Then I think we'll all need an AR-15 and a thousand rounds. Above or outside the law is very serious business, and any who thinks otherwise is a fool.

That would be a genetic fallacy, dismissing a report based on where it comes from and not on its merits. — NOS4A2

It would be, but I didn't dismiss it.

But it raises a great point: the State Department actually asked Rudy Giuliani to contact the lawyer for Ukraine’s president.

Why is this never mentioned? — NOS4A2

Probably because Trump controls the State Department, so we can't assume the State Dept. is a neutral player here. Besides, the whistleblower report apparently doesn't concern Guliani at all. So bringing up Guliani and his contacts is a red herring.

No, he’s fully within the law and the constitution is what I’m arguing. No need to twist it anymore than you’ve already tried. — NOS4A2

I think you're probably wrong about that. Who knows, maybe we'll find out.

According to recent reports, Trump is arguing that as president, he cannot even be investigated! — tim wood

I don't think it'd be indefensible to have a rule that a head of state could not formally be investigated without some legislative proceedings. Key word being formally, there always needs to be a way to run a preliminary investigation in order to allow the legislative to make a deicison.

But of course, in Trumps case, a nuanced rule like that isn't the point. The point is to muddy the waters.

But if and when the law explicitly removes itself from the arena, then what bounds self-defense? Ans.: nothing. The president "above the law"? Then I think we'll all need an AR-15 and a thousand rounds. Above or outside the law is very serious business, and any who thinks otherwise is a fool. — tim wood

There seems to be an overlap with the current legal challenge regarding prorogation in Britain. If executive decisions are not justiciable at all, this invites an abuse of power.

Probably because Trump controls the State Department, so we can't assume the State Dept. is a neutral player here. Besides, the whistleblower report apparently doesn't concern Guliani at all. So bringing up Guliani and his contacts is a red herring.

No, they’re not neutral. The state dept has to carry out the foreign policies of the administration. But they are completely relevant to the situation, not only because they are involved in it, but also because combatting corruption abroad falls under their purview.

No, they’re not neutral. The state dept has to carry out the foreign policies of the administration. But they are completely relevant to the situation, not only because they are involved in it, but also because combatting corruption abroad falls under their purview. — NOS4A2

Oh, are we already changing the narrative from "we're investigating an american for the sake of american justice" to "we're combatting corruption abroad"?

Oh, are we already changing the narrative from "we're investigating an american for the sake of american justice" to "we're combatting corruption abroad"?

I don’t get it it. The alleged corruption would involve both Americans and Ukrainians. Does this not compute when viewed through the lens of the DNC narrative?

I don’t get it it. The alleged corruption would involve both Americans and Ukrainians. Does this not compute when viewed through the lens of the DNC narrative? — NOS4A2

You don't get that the executive is not supposed to influence criminal investigations, either domestic or abroad, especially not when high-profile political opponents are involved?

You don't get that the executive is not supposed to influence criminal investigations, either domestic or abroad, especially not when high-profile political opponents are involved?

That’s corruption. That’s exactly what Joe Biden is being accused of: firing the official that was investigating his son’s company. Not only that, but the DNC is also a target for investigation for working with Ukraine, a foreign power, to influence the 2016 election.

According to the press and their followers, Trump’s big crime is speaking with the president-elect to work with Guilliani. It’s all DNC spin, because it’s actually themselves and their candidates who allegedly broke laws,

↪Echarmion
That’s corruption. That’s exactly what Joe Biden is being accused of: firing the official that was investigating his son’s company. Not only that, but the DNC is also a target for investigation for working with Ukraine, a foreign power, to influence the 2016 election.

According to the press and their followers, Trump’s big crime is speaking with the president-elect to work with Guilliani. It’s all DNC spin, because it’s actually themselves and their candidates who allegedly broke laws, — NOS4A2

Ah, such faith in your orange god! You regard it as "DNC spin" to have suspicions aroused by knowlege that there was a whistleblower report. These suspicions could easily be shown to lack merit by providing the whistleblower report to Congress, as is required by law. Refusal to deliver it ADDS to suspicions. Did he offer a quid-pro-quo to the Ukrainian President? That would be illegal and impeachment-worthy. On the other hand, was he just asking for dirt on a political rival without a quid-pro-quo? That is apparently legal, but it is the public interest to know if he indeed engaged in such indecent behavior. IMO, this sort of behavior ought to be criminalized because even if there is no explicit quid-pro-quo, there's always an implicit one when a President asks for political help from a country that is beholden to us for economic or military aid.

Yes, the alleged corruption between Biden, then vice-president of the US, and his son was committed in and with Ukraine during the Obama administration. The alleged crimes occurred in Ukraine and with the Ukrainian government. I know you’re smart enough to see the problem here. — NOS4A2

So...you're OK with witch hunts, as long as the alleged witch is a Democrat.

That’s corruption. That’s exactly what Joe Biden is being accused of: firing the official that was investigating his son’s company. Not only that, but the DNC is also a target for investigation for working with Ukraine, a foreign power, to influence the 2016 election. — NOS4A2

The usual whataboutism. But Clinton did a thing!

According to the press and their followers, Trump’s big crime is speaking with the president-elect to work with Guilliani. — NOS4A2

Now it's just "speaking" and not using US funds in military aid as leverage. The spin machine in action.

It’s all DNC spin, because it’s actually themselves and their candidates who allegedly broke laws, — NOS4A2

"It's fine if I break the laws, they did it first"! Just more whataboutism.

This information is being kept from the Muslims as the House of Islam continues to suppress any/all attempts to call into question the Islamic account of history in which Muslims so vehemently "believe" in. — A Gnostic Agnostic

The "information" is actually freely available. There are entire books written on the subject.

Also: The style of your post suggests you're suffering from a mental illness. Please consider getting professional help!

The "information" is actually freely available. There are entire books written on the subject.

It doesn't matter - most Muslims either can not read at all and/or have not read any book but the Qur'an. It also doesn't matter because a Muslim will "believe" that all books are inferior to the Qur'an - the Qur'an being "believed" to be from a god, but is, in fact, just as man-made as any other book.

That they "believe" they are fighting *against* man-made laws is...

Also: The style of your post suggests you're suffering from a mental illness. Please consider getting professional help!

...the real mental illness.

They accused Donald Trump of the same: his score came back perfect.

What "mental illness" did you have in mind, specifically?

Yes, your ‘whistleblower’ doesn’t even have direct knowledge of Trump’s conversation, according to CNN.

You guys have propped up DNC propaganda, conspiracy theories and investigations for years now it’s not surprising that you’re now calling foul when you beloved candidates and parties are receiving scrutiny of their own.

Whataboutism? That’s convenient when your party and beloved candidates might be guilty of exactly that which you’ve been accusing others of being guilty of.