Donald Trump publicly confesses to multiple crimes regard his call with Zelensky

[Devout Centrist]

Prediction: there's 18 and a half minutes of missing notes/transcript. The secretary was using the eraser instead of the pencil.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/adamgoldmanNYT/status/1176566461516734464

Wow! Credit where credit is due. Richard Burr has actually been a fair committee chair, at least much better than you would expect from a Republican in the age of Trump. Notable is that he already announced retirement in 2022; so the guy hasn't a lot to lose. But I still give him credit.

Burr and his fellows regularly leaked Mueller probe info to the White House.

My guess is that the only reason he's interested in the whistleblower's testimony is because the WH doesn't know who it is and this way he can find out.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/1176596185232154625

[ProudModerate2]

https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/1176596185232154625

Really?
This is bomb in DC.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Republicans and conservatives relentlessly back Trump even though he is LITERALLY SCREAMING INTO THEIR FACES ABOUT SHAMELESSLY USING THE PRESIDENCY TO BREAK THE LAW, Episode # 1,673.

Is there anything Trump has said that you think you could bring before a judge as an admission of guilt and be taken remotely seriously?

Before a jury? Yes.

Before any voter of even sub-average intelligence but even average integrity ? Hell yes.

What is it he said that he did, and what law does it violate? 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

A (pardon the term) trumped up "investigation" of Trump's political rival to damage him in the election is quite clearly a thing of value that Trump was soliciting from Ukraine. This is a clear cut conspiracy to violate campaign finance law.

So the House Intelligence Committee couldn't ask a citizen of another nation for information on whether Trump violated the law, since that could influence the election?

[ProudModerate2]

Looks like House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff is saying the whistleblower may speak as early as this week ....

"We're in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower's testimony as soon as this week."

[Slander and/or Libel]

Republicans and conservatives relentlessly back Trump even though he is LITERALLY SCREAMING INTO THEIR FACES ABOUT SHAMELESSLY USING THE PRESIDENCY TO BREAK THE LAW, Episode # 1,673.

Is there anything Trump has said that you think you could bring before a judge as an admission of guilt and be taken remotely seriously?

Before a jury? Yes.

Before any voter of even sub-average intelligence but even average integrity ? Hell yes.

What is it he said that he did, and what law does it violate? 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

A (pardon the term) trumped up "investigation" of Trump's political rival to damage him in the election is quite clearly a thing of value that Trump was soliciting from Ukraine. This is a clear cut conspiracy to violate campaign finance law.

So the House Intelligence Committee couldn't ask a citizen of another nation for information on whether Trump violated the law, since that could influence the election?

This is disingenuous nonsense and you know it. Steele’s work was contracted and paid for, not a contribution.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I was driving and turned on a news radio station to hear the Pelosi announcement.  Erick Erickson's show was on and he was discussing the latest developments.  He summed it up by saying "if I was the President today, I'd be worried."

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Republicans and conservatives relentlessly back Trump even though he is LITERALLY SCREAMING INTO THEIR FACES ABOUT SHAMELESSLY USING THE PRESIDENCY TO BREAK THE LAW, Episode # 1,673.

Is there anything Trump has said that you think you could bring before a judge as an admission of guilt and be taken remotely seriously?

Before a jury? Yes.

Before any voter of even sub-average intelligence but even average integrity ? Hell yes.

What is it he said that he did, and what law does it violate? 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

A (pardon the term) trumped up "investigation" of Trump's political rival to damage him in the election is quite clearly a thing of value that Trump was soliciting from Ukraine. This is a clear cut conspiracy to violate campaign finance law.

So the House Intelligence Committee couldn't ask a citizen of another nation for information on whether Trump violated the law, since that could influence the election?

This is disingenuous nonsense and you know it. Steele’s work was contracted and paid for, not a contribution.

It's a legitimate question.   Only assuming things Trump has explicitly admitted to, what is the legal difference between these?

[SteveRogers]

Republicans and conservatives relentlessly back Trump even though he is LITERALLY SCREAMING INTO THEIR FACES ABOUT SHAMELESSLY USING THE PRESIDENCY TO BREAK THE LAW, Episode # 1,673.

Is there anything Trump has said that you think you could bring before a judge as an admission of guilt and be taken remotely seriously?

Before a jury? Yes.

Before any voter of even sub-average intelligence but even average integrity ? Hell yes.

What is it he said that he did, and what law does it violate? 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

A (pardon the term) trumped up "investigation" of Trump's political rival to damage him in the election is quite clearly a thing of value that Trump was soliciting from Ukraine. This is a clear cut conspiracy to violate campaign finance law.

So the House Intelligence Committee couldn't ask a citizen of another nation for information on whether Trump violated the law, since that could influence the election?

This is disingenuous nonsense and you know it. Steele’s work was contracted and paid for, not a contribution.

It's a legitimate question.   Only assuming things Trump has explicitly admitted to, what is the legal difference between these?

I would look to the federal bribery statute. 18 U.S. Code § 201.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

What makes the official act (releasing funds to Ukraine) illegal is the fact that Trump conditioned it on a quid pro quo for a thing of value (opposition research on his political opponent).

[Slander and/or Libel]

Republicans and conservatives relentlessly back Trump even though he is LITERALLY SCREAMING INTO THEIR FACES ABOUT SHAMELESSLY USING THE PRESIDENCY TO BREAK THE LAW, Episode # 1,673.

Is there anything Trump has said that you think you could bring before a judge as an admission of guilt and be taken remotely seriously?

Before a jury? Yes.

Before any voter of even sub-average intelligence but even average integrity ? Hell yes.

What is it he said that he did, and what law does it violate? 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

A (pardon the term) trumped up "investigation" of Trump's political rival to damage him in the election is quite clearly a thing of value that Trump was soliciting from Ukraine. This is a clear cut conspiracy to violate campaign finance law.

So the House Intelligence Committee couldn't ask a citizen of another nation for information on whether Trump violated the law, since that could influence the election?

This is disingenuous nonsense and you know it. Steele’s work was contracted and paid for, not a contribution.

It's a legitimate question.   Only assuming things Trump has explicitly admitted to, what is the legal difference between these?

Paying a foreign national for a legitimate service is a different thing from threatening to withhold aid unless a foreign country initiated an “investigation” of your political rival under false pretenses.

This shouldn’t need spelling out.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Republicans and conservatives relentlessly back Trump even though he is LITERALLY SCREAMING INTO THEIR FACES ABOUT SHAMELESSLY USING THE PRESIDENCY TO BREAK THE LAW, Episode # 1,673.

Is there anything Trump has said that you think you could bring before a judge as an admission of guilt and be taken remotely seriously?

Before a jury? Yes.

Before any voter of even sub-average intelligence but even average integrity ? Hell yes.

What is it he said that he did, and what law does it violate? 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

A (pardon the term) trumped up "investigation" of Trump's political rival to damage him in the election is quite clearly a thing of value that Trump was soliciting from Ukraine. This is a clear cut conspiracy to violate campaign finance law.

So the House Intelligence Committee couldn't ask a citizen of another nation for information on whether Trump violated the law, since that could influence the election?

This is disingenuous nonsense and you know it. Steele’s work was contracted and paid for, not a contribution.

It's a legitimate question.   Only assuming things Trump has explicitly admitted to, what is the legal difference between these?

I would look to the federal bribery statute. 18 U.S. Code § 201.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

What makes the official act (releasing funds to Ukraine) illegal is the fact that Trump conditioned it on a quid pro quo for a thing of value (opposition research on his political opponent).

Are you saying the Ukranian President in this case would be the public official, or the one trying to bribe an official?   Or something else?

[SteveRogers]

Republicans and conservatives relentlessly back Trump even though he is LITERALLY SCREAMING INTO THEIR FACES ABOUT SHAMELESSLY USING THE PRESIDENCY TO BREAK THE LAW, Episode # 1,673.

Is there anything Trump has said that you think you could bring before a judge as an admission of guilt and be taken remotely seriously?

Before a jury? Yes.

Before any voter of even sub-average intelligence but even average integrity ? Hell yes.

What is it he said that he did, and what law does it violate? 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

A (pardon the term) trumped up "investigation" of Trump's political rival to damage him in the election is quite clearly a thing of value that Trump was soliciting from Ukraine. This is a clear cut conspiracy to violate campaign finance law.

So the House Intelligence Committee couldn't ask a citizen of another nation for information on whether Trump violated the law, since that could influence the election?

This is disingenuous nonsense and you know it. Steele’s work was contracted and paid for, not a contribution.

It's a legitimate question.   Only assuming things Trump has explicitly admitted to, what is the legal difference between these?

I would look to the federal bribery statute. 18 U.S. Code § 201.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

What makes the official act (releasing funds to Ukraine) illegal is the fact that Trump conditioned it on a quid pro quo for a thing of value (opposition research on his political opponent).

Are you saying the Ukranian President in this case would be the public official, or the one trying to bribe an official?   Or something else?

Trump is the public official demanding the thing of value in exchange for being influenced in the performance of an official act.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Republicans and conservatives relentlessly back Trump even though he is LITERALLY SCREAMING INTO THEIR FACES ABOUT SHAMELESSLY USING THE PRESIDENCY TO BREAK THE LAW, Episode # 1,673.

Is there anything Trump has said that you think you could bring before a judge as an admission of guilt and be taken remotely seriously?

Before a jury? Yes.

Before any voter of even sub-average intelligence but even average integrity ? Hell yes.

What is it he said that he did, and what law does it violate? 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

A (pardon the term) trumped up "investigation" of Trump's political rival to damage him in the election is quite clearly a thing of value that Trump was soliciting from Ukraine. This is a clear cut conspiracy to violate campaign finance law.

So the House Intelligence Committee couldn't ask a citizen of another nation for information on whether Trump violated the law, since that could influence the election?

This is disingenuous nonsense and you know it. Steele’s work was contracted and paid for, not a contribution.

It's a legitimate question.   Only assuming things Trump has explicitly admitted to, what is the legal difference between these?

I would look to the federal bribery statute. 18 U.S. Code § 201.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

What makes the official act (releasing funds to Ukraine) illegal is the fact that Trump conditioned it on a quid pro quo for a thing of value (opposition research on his political opponent).

Are you saying the Ukranian President in this case would be the public official, or the one trying to bribe an official?   Or something else?

Trump is the public official demanding the thing of value in exchange for being influenced in the performance of an official act.

Okay, that seems plausibly relevant, though it does depend on it being done "corruptly."  I don't know how that is defined, and whether anything Trump has said he did fits that definition, besides which Trump has said there was no quid pro quo.

[Karpatsky]

Republicans and conservatives relentlessly back Trump even though he is LITERALLY SCREAMING INTO THEIR FACES ABOUT SHAMELESSLY USING THE PRESIDENCY TO BREAK THE LAW, Episode # 1,673.

Is there anything Trump has said that you think you could bring before a judge as an admission of guilt and be taken remotely seriously?

Before a jury? Yes.

Before any voter of even sub-average intelligence but even average integrity ? Hell yes.

What is it he said that he did, and what law does it violate? 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

A (pardon the term) trumped up "investigation" of Trump's political rival to damage him in the election is quite clearly a thing of value that Trump was soliciting from Ukraine. This is a clear cut conspiracy to violate campaign finance law.

So the House Intelligence Committee couldn't ask a citizen of another nation for information on whether Trump violated the law, since that could influence the election?

This is disingenuous nonsense and you know it. Steele’s work was contracted and paid for, not a contribution.

It's a legitimate question.   Only assuming things Trump has explicitly admitted to, what is the legal difference between these?

I would look to the federal bribery statute. 18 U.S. Code § 201.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

What makes the official act (releasing funds to Ukraine) illegal is the fact that Trump conditioned it on a quid pro quo for a thing of value (opposition research on his political opponent).

Are you saying the Ukranian President in this case would be the public official, or the one trying to bribe an official?   Or something else?

Trump is the public official demanding the thing of value in exchange for being influenced in the performance of an official act.

Okay, that seems plausibly relevant, though it does depend on it being done "corruptly."  I don't know how that is defined, and whether anything Trump has said he did fits that definition, besides which Trump has said there was no quid pro quo.

Such an act is inherently corrupt.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1176633765726216194

[Nyvin]

Okay, that seems plausibly relevant, though it does depend on it being done "corruptly."  I don't know how that is defined, and whether anything Trump has said he did fits that definition, besides which Trump has said there was no quid pro quo.

"You give me dirt on Biden, I give you foreign aid money"  is top tier corruption all by itself.

[Green Line]

I don't know if I have faith in the White House to not alter the transcript.  Just look at what they were willing to do with the Alabama Hurricane debacle.  This is a White House purged of all decent people.  Trump has surrounded himself with sycophants.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

All the people mocking Pelosi in the first few pages = 🤡🤡🤡

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Okay, that seems plausibly relevant, though it does depend on it being done "corruptly."  I don't know how that is defined, and whether anything Trump has said he did fits that definition, besides which Trump has said there was no quid pro quo.

"You give me dirt on Biden, I give you foreign aid money"  is top tier corruption all by itself.

Again, not describing anything like what Trump has admitted to.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/republicans-could-back-impeachment-if-trump-directly-linked-ukraine-aid-to-biden-probe

‘Dam will start to break’: Hill GOP could back impeachment if Trump demanded Ukraine quid pro quo.

Even Cocaine Mitch seems to be disturbed. Kevin McCarthy is still in Devin Nunes level insanity.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Okay, that seems plausibly relevant, though it does depend on it being done "corruptly."  I don't know how that is defined, and whether anything Trump has said he did fits that definition, besides which Trump has said there was no quid pro quo.

"You give me dirt on Biden, I give you foreign aid money"  is top tier corruption all by itself.

Again, not describing anything like what Trump has admitted to.

He’s said:

1) he didn’t want corruption like Biden happening in Ukraine

2) he withheld aid because he was worried Ukraine wasn’t tackling corruption.

Do I need to draw you a map?

[Badger]

Republicans and conservatives relentlessly back Trump even though he is LITERALLY SCREAMING INTO THEIR FACES ABOUT SHAMELESSLY USING THE PRESIDENCY TO BREAK THE LAW, Episode # 1,673.

Is there anything Trump has said that you think you could bring before a judge as an admission of guilt and be taken remotely seriously?

Before a jury? Yes.

Before any voter of even sub-average intelligence but even average integrity ? Hell yes.

What is it he said that he did, and what law does it violate?  

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

A (pardon the term) trumped up "investigation" of Trump's political rival to damage him in the election is quite clearly a thing of value that Trump was soliciting from Ukraine. This is a clear cut conspiracy to violate campaign finance law.

So the House Intelligence Committee couldn't ask a citizen of another nation for information on whether Trump violated the law, since that could influence the election?

This is disingenuous nonsense and you know it. Steele’s work was contracted and paid for, not a contribution.

It's a legitimate question.   Only assuming things Trump has explicitly admitted to, what is the legal difference between these?

I would look to the federal bribery statute. 18 U.S. Code § 201.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

What makes the official act (releasing funds to Ukraine) illegal is the fact that Trump conditioned it on a quid pro quo for a thing of value (opposition research on his political opponent).

Are you saying the Ukranian President in this case would be the public official, or the one trying to bribe an official?   Or something else?

Trump is the public official demanding the thing of value in exchange for being influenced in the performance of an official act.

Okay, that seems plausibly relevant, though it does depend on it being done "corruptly."  I don't know how that is defined, and whether anything Trump has said he did fits that definition, besides which Trump has said there was no quid pro quo.

Such an act is inherently corrupt.

My God, people. A for effort, but for the sake of your sanity quit trying to convince one of the most disingenuous and habitually contrarian hacks on Atlas.

I recall a few years ago that shua was thoughtful first and contrarian second. Now he's morphed into JJ's alter ego.

[Person Man]

Republicans and conservatives relentlessly back Trump even though he is LITERALLY SCREAMING INTO THEIR FACES ABOUT SHAMELESSLY USING THE PRESIDENCY TO BREAK THE LAW, Episode # 1,673.

Is there anything Trump has said that you think you could bring before a judge as an admission of guilt and be taken remotely seriously?

Before a jury? Yes.

Before any voter of even sub-average intelligence but even average integrity ? Hell yes.

What is it he said that he did, and what law does it violate? 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

A (pardon the term) trumped up "investigation" of Trump's political rival to damage him in the election is quite clearly a thing of value that Trump was soliciting from Ukraine. This is a clear cut conspiracy to violate campaign finance law.

So the House Intelligence Committee couldn't ask a citizen of another nation for information on whether Trump violated the law, since that could influence the election?

This is disingenuous nonsense and you know it. Steele’s work was contracted and paid for, not a contribution.

It's a legitimate question.   Only assuming things Trump has explicitly admitted to, what is the legal difference between these?

I would look to the federal bribery statute. 18 U.S. Code § 201.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

What makes the official act (releasing funds to Ukraine) illegal is the fact that Trump conditioned it on a quid pro quo for a thing of value (opposition research on his political opponent).

Are you saying the Ukranian President in this case would be the public official, or the one trying to bribe an official?   Or something else?

Trump is the public official demanding the thing of value in exchange for being influenced in the performance of an official act.

Okay, that seems plausibly relevant, though it does depend on it being done "corruptly."  I don't know how that is defined, and whether anything Trump has said he did fits that definition, besides which Trump has said there was no quid pro quo.

Such an act is inherently corrupt.

My God, people. A for effort, but for you and Sandy quit texting trying to convince one of the most disingenuous and habitually contrarian hacks on Atlas.

I recall a few years ago that shua was thoughtful first and contrarian second. Now he's morphed into JJ's alter ego.

At least JJ’s style was ... interesting .

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Badger if you are going to make an extraordinary claim - that Trump admitted to a crime - you could choose to back it up instead resorting to your tired insults.

No one has in this thread yet pointed to any quote from Trump that would match this claim.
Maybe you should just own up and say "No he didn't literally say it, I just think it's likely," and from there we can weigh the other evidence.