DJL

We need to know who personally called for the records to be kept hidden because that indicates who understood that the conversation could be damaging.

I agree, I don't think the conversation is a clear quid pro quo. I think he needed to keep himself out of it just so we don't have this Dumb-Watergate going on but I agree that the President may feel free to discuss and push for investigations.

You need to provide your sources on these events including when they happened. Manafort was under investigation going all the way back to 2014 (https://fortune.com/2017/09/19/paul-manafort-fbi-surveillance-donald-trump-russia/ ), two years before he joined Trump's campaign (March 2016 https://fortune.com/2017/03/22/paul-manafort-donald-trump-vladimir-putin/ ) EDIT: Are you talking about THIS? https://fortune.com/2017/09/19/paul-manafort-fbi-surveillance-donald-trump-russia/ Because that meeting is still months before Manafort was involved in Trump's campaign.

This is the crux of the issue and something you're wrong about. Biden, Obama and pretty much all of the Western powers involved in assisting Ukraine in its move from corrupt Russian influence wanted his removal because Shokin was sandbagging his investigations, including his investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma holdings. Once he was gone it was validated that Shokin was doing nothing to look into Zlochevsky and Burisma. So to correct your statement above, Biden acknowledged on camera that, when he was vice president, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was NOT investigating Zlochevsky and Burisma Holdings where Biden's son Hunter had a highly lucrative role on the board...

You know, I saw that yesterday just blinked a few times trying to figure out whether he mispelled "Little". What would " Liddle' " mean?

If you have some solid information to share then please do.

Bingo. That's basically what this is all about. He really thinks, and is being told be every source in his bubble, that there is a legitimate reason to personally persue these things.

Actually, see above, we're at 495. But let's be clear, there are not 500 signatories, it says the report was put together by 500 scientists and never says who they are. We're just picking at random for the 14 who they listed. Ok, I'll grab another at random: Professor Ingemar Nordin Sweden He's a basic denier with no credentials in climate research, he's a professor in the Department of Culture and Communication at a college in Sweden and writes blog posts on a denier website. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingemar_Nordin Of interest is that Professor Nordin doesn't know who the signatories of the letter are: http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2019/09/25/det-finns-ingen-klimatkris/ So, 494.

I get it but I think this is more about why we can't have an idiot as the President, he's chasing down Fox News conspiracy theories about a political opponent on an open conversation. This wasn't done in secret, he's very much aware that all conversations are recorded. The effort to hide anything happened when he got off the phone and it was by his staff. Much of Trump's motivation is based upon the misconception that Biden was trying to STOP an investigation into his son's company. That's not the case at all but if it were true then the US Govt would be very justified to look into that. Therefore Trump thinks and would be correct in looking into it. Also, it's OK for the President to pursue investigations just like it was OK for the FBI to pursue investigations into those working with Trump during the elections. BUT, it becomes really fuckin' murky after that and that's why I'm trying to ignore this whole thing for a while as it develops. Was it legal for Giuliani to be involved? Is there ANY validity to illegal actions involving Hunter Biden? If there IS a valid reason for investigating is it wrong for a President to discuss that over the phone? Trump believes all of this Fox News bullshit is true and I'll bet that nobody on his staff tells him otherwise. Therefore he sees no reason why he shouldn't personally talk about what he understands to be true. Holy shit, I'm in his head and it's a scary place to be.

Brent's response: Well...ok. that leaves 496. Next up: The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Do we even need text for this one? Nope. Pictures will do. Brent's response: "Ok....that leaves 495."

My comment was to change the text of your comment from "Yes it is a fully political process." to "Yes it is a zoo." agreeing that the impeachment process and it's shortcomings is a zoo that puts the President above the law. The next step is to make the case crystal clear, if they can't then they need to drop it because at this point even moderate Republicans see him as having done nothing that Biden and Obama didn't do. Nevermind that Biden's request was in the interest of removing a corrupt investigator who wasn't doing anything and Obama had no part of the investigation into Manafort that began 2 years before he was part of the Trump campaign.

Edited for clarity.

Got it. If it gets to the Senate they make the rules for almost everything from how it's run to what type of evidence is admissible. It's not run like a Court. That's all I know as I'm just regurgitating what I read.

Also remember that Senate impeachment proceedings would be led by Mitch McConnell who will echo my sentiment that the conversation stands alone, peppered with placation and was not a formal directive for action. Trump's genuine best defense is that he always speaks in a stream of consciousness, has no knowledge or regard for the line between formal an informal communication, always hold back funding or support simply to make people sweat and always blocks inquiries into his actions and communications. I think it's a very realistic standard that in order for Mitch McConnell to agree to impeachment that the language needs to be absolutely airtight.

To me that looks like the issue was covering up for Trump rather than the actual content of the conversation. When will people learn that they end up in jail for doing this and Trump washes his hands of them.

Because the lawsuit wasn't about the data but about an organization's ability to disagree and publish a contesting view. Even ACLU thought Mann was overstepping himself. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-climate-change-for-lawsuits-11569279287

Yaaawwwnnn.... I don't see 500. They only list 14 (Who are well known deniers) but say it was prepared by 500 scientists. Who are the other 486? And really, if they're going to list these as the most relevant why couldn't they find people who weren't formally discredited in a courtroom or by their entire academic body? Professor Guus Berkhout – The NetherlandsProfessor Richard Lindzen – USAProfessor Reynald Du Berger – French CanadaProfessor Ingemar Nordin – SwedenTerry Dunleavy – New ZealandJim O’Brien – Rep. of IrelandViv Forbes – AustraliaProfessor Alberto Prestininzi – ItalyProfessor Jeffrey Foss – English CanadaProfessor Benoît Rittaud – FranceMorten Jødal – NorwayProfessor Fritz Vahrenholt – GermanyRob Lemeire – BelgiumThe Viscount Monckton of Brenchley – UK Edit: Also, is there some research associated with this or was it a letter that just said, "We don't think there's a climate emergency and plants like CO2."

Ran out of English language denier sources? Edit: Ha, I was curious about the signatories on the list and I only checked two but it was humorous. Professor Richard Lindzen (Retired), best known for his entire academic body calling him out as not reflecting the views and research of his former colleagues: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump Terry Dunleavy, was found IN COURT to be entirely unqualified and lacks scientific expertise: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10834154 Edit2: A third, Fritz Vahrenholt, debunked climate denier, as in he actually research, had it published and it was wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Vahrenholt I'm kind of busy this morning but this is funny, as the only three I've looked at basically hookers for hire in the denier movement. The group Dunleavy was with was actually fined for the cost of the court case they brought as it was found to be a waste of taxpayer dollars. They liquidated and declared bankruptcy leaving taxpayers on the hook for $85k.

That's the main arguement I have over this, that I think there's plenty of wiggle. As I understand it the full transcript will be made public or available so we'll see how well it matches the memorandum but to me this looks exactly how Trump talks to anyone, he never varies outside of his own brand of dealmaking jargon and he speaks in streams of consciousness.

I don't think it's even close to a strong arm attempt. If this is really what this whole thing is about then it just went poof. Edit: To continue, there's no "this for that" request or agreement, it's a conversation in which both parties placate and commend each other, talk about how they're so good for each other. This is how Trump speaks. Trump also knows that Guliani has been working this angle with the Biden relationships in Ukraine and he works that in there. Trump simply does not communicate deliberately enough in this conversation (or in general) to say that he's doing anything illegal. One thing to remember here is that according to all sources, including Biden himself, he sought to remove the previous investigator because he was moving too slowly in his investigations and letting people like Hunter Biden's associate (boss/board member/company owner) get off the hook on their corruption issues. Biden did NOT request the investigator gone because he was investigating Hunter's company for corruption, he wanted him gone because he WAS NOT investigating it's founding co-owner for corruption. This is a mistake that's been regurgitated in conservative news networks because of the picture it paints and is probably why Trump was looking at this to begin with. EDIT2: After typing this I found this article which appears to split the issue about the same way. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49831516

I can't even think of a quip sarcastic enough to describe how quickly the Republican Senators will spin it away from Trump. It's almost already too late to put a Republican up for election and all they care about is a Republican in Office. Just one facet is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be dead before the next four years are up and that puts the Supreme Court in their total control for the next 50 years. There is NOTHING Trump could do that would make them ignore that.

Trump doesn't have any of the paranoia or regard that Nixon had. In fact the storyline of Democrats trying to oust him through a political witch hunt plays very well into his narrative.

What is the "that"? I'll even put in bold the most outlandish portion of her speech: "My message is that we'll be watching you. "This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you! "You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you! "For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight. "You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe. "The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control. "Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist. "So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences. "To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons. "How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just 'business as usual' and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years. "There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is. "You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you. "We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not. "Thank you."

To be clear, did Nancy know exactly what was said in the phone call? Because if she didn't then this entire thing could blow up in her face and have serious repercussions for the upcoming elections. Remember, this is the guy who is an expert at telling people to do things in a way that doesn't implicate himself. It's REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT that she knew exactly what was said.

Yup. My response was to not use Steel. The method they're calling for using a lot of power, thus BV's response.