Home About Chat Users Issues Party Candidates Polling Firms Media News Polls Calendar Key Races United States President Senate House Governors International

New User Account
"A historical political resource." 
Email: Password:

  Tulsi Gabbard: Transcript doesn't show 'compelling' case for impeachment
NEWS DETAILS
Parent(s) Candidate 
ContributorPA Indy 
Last EditedPA Indy  Sep 25, 2019 04:56pm
Logged 0
CategoryNews
AuthorTess Bonn
News DateWednesday, September 25, 2019 10:55:00 PM UTC0:0
DescriptionRep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) said Wednesday that the partial transcript of President Trump's call with Ukraine’s president released by the Trump administration doesn’t show a “compelling” case for impeachment.

“Most people reading through that transcript are not going to find that extremely compelling cause to throw out a president that won an election in 2016,” the Democratic presidential candidate told Hill.TV during an appearance on “Rising.”
Share
ArticleRead Full Article

NEWS
Date Category Headline Article Contributor

DISCUSSION
[View All
10
Previous Messages]
 
I:7114Kyle ( 745.3659 points)
Wed, September 25, 2019 11:57:25 PM UTC0:00
BrentinCO: She’s absolutely right.

I was expecting something explosive, or coercive, or mention of dollars or military aid. Nothing.

Very tame transcript with things people might disagree with, but not impeachable. IF there is nothing more all Dems did on this was awaken the Trump base.

Agreed. It was concerning, but not impeachable. Democrats should have waited 24 hours for the transcript.

However, I DO think that more of an investigation should be pursued to see if the allegations of a quid-pro quo have any possibility.

 
R:9757BrentinCO ( 3307.2993 points)
Thu, September 26, 2019 12:51:43 AM UTC0:00
Labour Dem: That "transcript" is more like a recap, but it's still very troubling and worth investigating.

Yes. Agreed. A controlled recap provided by the accused. This is the political equivalent of a defendant's statement crafted by a great trial lawyer.

But the ball is now in the Dems court to show what they have that brings this from the level of an investigation to impeachment proceedings.

Looking for the political equivalent of tire tracks, fingerprints, and bite marks or dare I say a blue stained dress. Anything less shows this whole thing was a big air ball.

 
D:1RP ( 5218.4644 points)
x2
Thu, September 26, 2019 04:55:58 AM UTC0:00
Who thinks Tulsi endorses Trump after she and Bernie drop out of the Presidential race?

 
D:7CA Pol Junkie ( 4306.3022 points)
Thu, September 26, 2019 06:29:33 AM UTC0:00
BrentinCO: Very tame transcript with things people might disagree with, but not impeachable. IF there is nothing more all Dems did on this was awaken the Trump base.

It had what was expected, which was Trump asking a foreign government for help with his re-election campaign. It also had something not expected from earlier reports: an implicit linkage to the military aid. In combination with Trump holding up delivery of the military aid a week before, we know what happened. To prove it will require additional documentation, but reports are that the whistle-blower report will provide more documentation and witnesses.

 
D:7CA Pol Junkie ( 4306.3022 points)
Thu, September 26, 2019 06:31:40 AM UTC0:00
I really feel bad for Ukrainian President Zelensky. I can't even imagine the embarrassment of having the world reading about how he completely sucked up to Trump.

 
I:1038PA Indy ( 1352.2366 points)
x2
Thu, September 26, 2019 05:46:59 PM UTC0:00
So, I'm not quite sure what people were expecting. The memo isn't a Nixon tape, no. But the memo does show that Trump encourages the President of Ukraine to look into Biden's son and Trump's theory that Joe Biden had a Ukrainian prosecutor fired to stop an investigation. At the same time, he draws in the AG and his personal attorney into this. And President Trump has admitted as much. If you were expecting an explicit quid pro quo, you watch too many movies. This is worth investigation.

And the line between investigation/oversight and impeachment is negligible. There's no need for the Speaker to say there's now an inquiry, the House doesn't have to authorize one, any member can offer an impeachment resolution at any time. I don't care what it's called by the legislative branch, but that branch does have a duty to protect against an executive that has grown accustomed to crossing lines. Though, I'm sure even if the memo had had that explicit line some were expecting, certain people still would say it's a nothing burger.

 
D:1RP ( 5218.4644 points)
x4
Thu, September 26, 2019 06:51:33 PM UTC0:00
"The nice Italian man was merely saying he hoped nothing bad happened to your family. It wasn't an explicit threat."

 
D:1RP ( 5218.4644 points)
Fri, September 27, 2019 08:11:07 PM UTC0:00
Reversal:

Tulsi Gabbard backs Trump impeachment inquiry - [Link]