Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 17:17:03 GMT
Yes, NATO recognizes Ukraine as an aspiring member. And that's fine that you want an investigation into Biden, but you understand that it would be separate from the investigation into Trump's handling of military aid, right? And you also understand that Trump blocked members of his staff from testifying before the House (after they received Congressional subpoenas) and withheld pertinent documents to the House's investigation? Aspiring NATO member doesn’t mean being a member. Besides, I remember about ten years ago, the NATO member Georgia was invaded by Russia and nobody defended them. The documents about the Ukrainian matter is another accusation, Trump was impeached for 2 different matters (even if they're connected). Still, I wouldn't impeach someone wanting a suspicious matter to be investigated. I'd ask for a serious investigation on a vice president putting pressure on a foreign government to have his son hired in a powerful position. This is quite obviously not why he is being impeached (again, if he had legitimate concerns about the Bidens and the Ukraine, he should have reported them to American intelligence agencies). He was impeached (on one count) because he abused the power of the Presidency for his own personal political gain.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Dec 19, 2019 17:29:59 GMT
Tyler, dude... none of these things you say are any acts of criminal wrongdoing.
You're just throwing darts on a wall here. Who cares if he failed to report Biden and his son to American intelligence, and who cares if he blocked a few testimonies. Speaking of blocking people from telling the truth.... Hillary Clinton has a whole file on that. And as for his blackmailing of Ukraine...... well, I mean..... I dunno about you, but I'd personally like to know what that crooked bastard Biden and his son is up to, so I don't blame Trump for that.
Sure, I understand Biden is not being tried here, but...... we can still compare offenses. And so far, Biden is doing the same thing - using his power to get his son to succeed in business in the Ukraine where business laws are less strict and lesser talent and intelligence is needed to succeed (vs the U.S.) And I know his son isn't Leonardo DiCaprio. (in Wolf of Wall Street). He's not that smart to make it on his own.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 2,114
|
Post by cherry68 on Dec 19, 2019 17:30:10 GMT
Aspiring NATO member doesn’t mean being a member. Besides, I remember about ten years ago, the NATO member Georgia was invaded by Russia and nobody defended them. The documents about the Ukrainian matter is another accusation, Trump was impeached for 2 different matters (even if they're connected). Still, I wouldn't impeach someone wanting a suspicious matter to be investigated. I'd ask for a serious investigation on a vice president putting pressure on a foreign government to have his son hired in a powerful position. This is quite obviously not why he is being impeached (again, if he had legitimate concerns about the Bidens and the Ukraine, he should have reported them to American intelligence agencies). He was impeached (on one count) because he abused the power of the Presidency for his own personal political gain. Intelligence agencies to say what? Something that wasn't a secret? Besides, you need a crime to be declared by the country where it happened before reporting it to American police. If there was corruption in Ukrainian oil company, it happened in Ukraine. USA have no say in that. That's why Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 19, 2019 17:42:37 GMT
the fact that anyone here is trying to defend what was a blatant attempt by Trump (corroborated by multiple witnesses) to solicit foreign interference in a US election is mind-boggling to me.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,624
Likes: 1,790
|
Post by dazed on Dec 19, 2019 18:51:56 GMT
Kyle Kulinski brought up a good point.
What if Pelosi doesn’t hand the articles of impeachment to the senate? Would this be the best move since he’ll definitely be acquitted in the senate?
Interesting to think about. Maybe that’s asking too much from Pelosi though.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,624
Likes: 1,790
|
Post by dazed on Dec 19, 2019 18:57:05 GMT
This all sounds really compelling, but again, I just can't see how he wins MI, PA, and WI (all states he carried by less that 1%) again given how deeply unpopular he is in those states and how heavily Democratic they voted in 2018. Maybe he wins every other swing state, but these three? Do you honestly see this, pacinoyes? I think people voted Democrats into the House to do exactly what they've done - provide a check on Trump's out of control executive power. The last poll I saw was him beat every major Dem candidate in these states (USA today) poll - now that's just one poll but - polls should have him trounced right now, this is his low point - they don't at worst , he is at least competitive, and he underperforms in polling anyway we already know. That's bad sign to me - only Biden is a threat imo and I expect Biden to descend soon - there's a reason that he's on his 3rd Presidential campaign I wish I had better news but I don't see anything to spin positive on the Democratic side. I said it in the other thread Impeachment is the US Brexit but more importantly it is amazing that in 2016 they ran the only Democratic candidate who Trump could beat, and now 4 years later they can't find a single candidate to beat him (Biden being the exception but again, I see him faltering). Biden would get stomped by Trump. Trump would drag his ass around the debate floor. The more screen time Biden gets, the more he looks like he’s been declining mentally. Emerson just released a poll yesterday by the way that had those same democratic candidates beating Trump. I wouldn’t focus on those polls too much just yet. I’m not too sure why you keep listing Biden as the one that has the best chance to beat Trump when there’s Bernie. Who after you wrote off, actually had a surge in the polls.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 19, 2019 19:17:44 GMT
Biden would get stomped by Trump. Trump would drag his ass around the debate floor. The more screen time Biden gets, the more he looks like he’s been declining mentally. Emerson just released a poll yesterday by the way that had those same democratic candidates beating Trump. I wouldn’t focus on those polls too much just yet. I’m not too sure why you keep listing Biden as the one that has the best chance to beat Trump when there’s Bernie. Who after you wrote off, actually had a surge in the polls. Just to be clear I do not think any Democrat can beat Trump actually, Biden was my one optimistic point, so thanks or crushing that. I wrote Bernie off because I wouldn't vote for him myself - and if he can't get me to vote for him over Trump (who also isn't getting my vote) that's pretty abysmal if you know my political history. He's 79, he had a heart attack, he isn't winning ........if I'm wrong, I'll give you credit for calling it though.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Dec 19, 2019 19:18:30 GMT
And he raised 5 million yesterday. So....
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,624
Likes: 1,790
|
Post by dazed on Dec 19, 2019 19:27:11 GMT
Biden would get stomped by Trump. Trump would drag his ass around the debate floor. The more screen time Biden gets, the more he looks like he’s been declining mentally. Emerson just released a poll yesterday by the way that had those same democratic candidates beating Trump. I wouldn’t focus on those polls too much just yet. I’m not too sure why you keep listing Biden as the one that has the best chance to beat Trump when there’s Bernie. Who after you wrote off, actually had a surge in the polls. Just to be clear I do not think any Democrat can beat Trump actually, Biden was my one optimistic point, so thanks or crushing that. I wrote Bernie off because I wouldn't vote for him myself - and if he can't get me to vote for him over Trump (who also isn't getting my vote) that's pretty abysmal if you know my political history. He's 79, he had a heart attack, he isn't winning ........if I'm wrong, I'll give you credit for calling it though. No problem. I don’t think any democrat will win other than Bernie so we share a similar sentiment in regards to the likelihood of the democrats winning. I think people in the swing states will have an easier time voting for Bernie than Biden at the end of the day. A large reason why Trump won was because he went against the trade deals such as TPP which decimated their areas. As well as because they viewed him as not being apart of the establishment. You know who argued against those same trade deals and is even more against the establishment? Bernie. When Bernie went on Fox News and the Joe Rogan podcast, those on the right praised him for doing so, especially when he went on Joe Rogan. Even Morning Joe just talked about his popularity in the swing states and his ability to appeal to blue collar workers. Give Bernie an hour-hour and a half to talk, and he’ll get more swing voters on his side than any of the other democrats. You can’t use anecdotal evidence such as yourself as to why he’s written off. If your go to arguments are in regards to his age and health, then he’s doing very well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 19:32:14 GMT
And he raised 5 million yesterday. So.... A quick Google search shows that this is only being reported by far-right organizations, so I wouldn't necessarily believe it.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 20, 2019 1:03:25 GMT
You're just throwing darts on a wall here. Who cares if he failed to report Biden and his son to American intelligence, and who cares if he blocked a few testimonies. Speaking of blocking people from telling the truth.... Hillary Clinton has a whole file on that. And as for his blackmailing of Ukraine...... well, I mean..... I dunno about you, but I'd personally like to know what that crooked bastard Biden and his son is up to, so I don't blame Trump for that. Trump's actions constitute bribery under the law. The aid for Ukraine had already been passed by Congress and signed by him. He refused to perform his legal duty to pass that aid along unless the Ukrainian government performed what he himself defined as "favor" for him. Refusing to perform a required public duty unless someone performs a service for you is one of the statutory definitions of bribery. It is indisputable that he broke the law here. His not reporting Biden to American intelligence is key here because if it was a genuine attempt at an investigation rather than just a politically motivated attempt to embarrass Biden he assuredly would have done so. It should also be noted that the aid was not tied to them actually investigating Bide, just announcing that they were going to. So if Ukraine announced an investigation, then did zero actual investigation, Trump would have still passed on the aid. There is no argument to be made here that Trump was genuinely investigating Biden. He was bribing a foreign government with taxpayer money to get them to embarrass a political opponent. If you want to know "what Biden is up to" Trump's not going to get that done for you since he's made no attempt to actually investigate anything. Add to that that after the whistleblower complaint was filed the administration was required to pass it on within a short period like a few weeks but then sat on it for months afterwards in violation of the law. That combined with his blocking employees under subpoena from testifying makes a pretty clear case for obstruction of justice, which any other person would have been charged with if they'd taken his actions during the Russia investigation too. "Who cares" is not a legitimate legal defense. And if a general "abuse of power" charge isn't an impeachable offense I guess we all owe Richard Nixon a big apology.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Dec 20, 2019 1:30:38 GMT
You're just throwing darts on a wall here. Who cares if he failed to report Biden and his son to American intelligence, and who cares if he blocked a few testimonies. Speaking of blocking people from telling the truth.... Hillary Clinton has a whole file on that. And as for his blackmailing of Ukraine...... well, I mean..... I dunno about you, but I'd personally like to know what that crooked bastard Biden and his son is up to, so I don't blame Trump for that. Trump's actions constitute bribery under the law. The aid for Ukraine had already been passed by Congress and signed by him. He refused to perform his legal duty to pass that aid along unless the Ukrainian government performed what he himself defined as "favor" for him. Refusing to perform a required public duty unless someone performs a service for you is one of the statutory definitions of bribery. It is indisputable that he broke the law here. His not reporting Biden to American intelligence is key here because if it was a genuine attempt at an investigation rather than just a politically motivated attempt to embarrass Biden he assuredly would have done so. It should also be noted that the aid was not tied to them actually investigating Bide, just announcing that they were going to. So if Ukraine announced an investigation, then did zero actual investigation, Trump would have still passed on the aid. There is no argument to be made here that Trump was genuinely investigating Biden. He was bribing a foreign government with taxpayer money to get them to embarrass a political opponent. If you want to know "what Biden is up to" Trump's not going to get that done for you since he's made no attempt to actually investigate anything. Add to that that after the whistleblower complaint was filed the administration was required to pass it on within a short period like a few weeks but then sat on it for months afterwards in violation of the law. That combined with his blocking employees under subpoena from testifying makes a pretty clear case for obstruction of justice, which any other person would have been charged with if they'd taken his actions during the Russia investigation. "Who cares" is not a legitimate legal defense. And if a general "abuse of power" charge isn't an impeachable offense I guess we all owe Richard Nixon a big apology. Ehhhhh.....see this is what I mean by twisting it your way. These things you can call morally wrong - or even offenses, but they are in no way to be concluded with an impeachment. Don't bring up Nixon, because you can't compare the two crimes. Maybe in your mind it's convenient to just equate the two, but most people don't consider what Trump did to be anywhere near the level of Nixon. Now again, this is just your opinion and you're entitled to it, but you sound extremely inside your little bubble - because this event is not showing signs of raising a national scandal like Nixon or Clinton. And it's pretty obvious to me that Biden was someone who needed to be investigated. And because Biden is a crook, Trump has a legitimate testimony. There is two ends to this. Either he was attempting to get Ukraine to investigate Biden (which is reason enough for the action) or he was trying to embarrass Biden. If all he was doing is trying to embarrass Biden, again... that's weak sauce.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 20, 2019 3:08:42 GMT
Trump's actions constitute bribery under the law. The aid for Ukraine had already been passed by Congress and signed by him. He refused to perform his legal duty to pass that aid along unless the Ukrainian government performed what he himself defined as "favor" for him. Refusing to perform a required public duty unless someone performs a service for you is one of the statutory definitions of bribery. It is indisputable that he broke the law here. His not reporting Biden to American intelligence is key here because if it was a genuine attempt at an investigation rather than just a politically motivated attempt to embarrass Biden he assuredly would have done so. It should also be noted that the aid was not tied to them actually investigating Bide, just announcing that they were going to. So if Ukraine announced an investigation, then did zero actual investigation, Trump would have still passed on the aid. There is no argument to be made here that Trump was genuinely investigating Biden. He was bribing a foreign government with taxpayer money to get them to embarrass a political opponent. If you want to know "what Biden is up to" Trump's not going to get that done for you since he's made no attempt to actually investigate anything. Add to that that after the whistleblower complaint was filed the administration was required to pass it on within a short period like a few weeks but then sat on it for months afterwards in violation of the law. That combined with his blocking employees under subpoena from testifying makes a pretty clear case for obstruction of justice, which any other person would have been charged with if they'd taken his actions during the Russia investigation. "Who cares" is not a legitimate legal defense. And if a general "abuse of power" charge isn't an impeachable offense I guess we all owe Richard Nixon a big apology. Ehhhhh.....see this is what I mean by twisting it your way. These things you can call morally wrong - or even offenses, but they are in no way to be concluded with an impeachment. Don't bring up Nixon, because you can't compare the two crimes. Maybe in your mind it's convenient to just equate the two, but most people don't consider what Trump did to be anywhere near the level of Nixon. Now again, this is just your opinion and you're entitled to it, but you sound extremely inside your little bubble - because this event is not showing signs of raising a national scandal like Nixon or Clinton. And it's pretty obvious to me that Biden was someone who needed to be investigated. And because Biden is a crook, Trump has a legitimate testimony. There is two ends to this. Either he was attempting to get Ukraine to investigate Biden (which is reason enough for the action) or he was trying to embarrass Biden. If all he was doing is trying to embarrass Biden, again... that's weak sauce. Let's remember that Biden is not some guy that Trump is looking to embarrass just for shits and giggles, he's a political opponent that Trump may face in the next election. Trying to bribe a foreign government into investigating a political opponent and thereby influencing an election is definitely an issue, especially when the guy doing it has already been accused of possibly colluding with a foreign government for the last election (and had multiple campaign officials get charged for it).
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Dec 20, 2019 4:37:41 GMT
And he raised 5 million yesterday. So.... A quick Google search shows that this is only being reported by far-right organizations, so I wouldn't necessarily believe it. I believe it. People need to stop downplaying his base. They support him.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 20, 2019 5:17:58 GMT
Trump's actions constitute bribery under the law. The aid for Ukraine had already been passed by Congress and signed by him. He refused to perform his legal duty to pass that aid along unless the Ukrainian government performed what he himself defined as "favor" for him. Refusing to perform a required public duty unless someone performs a service for you is one of the statutory definitions of bribery. It is indisputable that he broke the law here. His not reporting Biden to American intelligence is key here because if it was a genuine attempt at an investigation rather than just a politically motivated attempt to embarrass Biden he assuredly would have done so. It should also be noted that the aid was not tied to them actually investigating Bide, just announcing that they were going to. So if Ukraine announced an investigation, then did zero actual investigation, Trump would have still passed on the aid. There is no argument to be made here that Trump was genuinely investigating Biden. He was bribing a foreign government with taxpayer money to get them to embarrass a political opponent. If you want to know "what Biden is up to" Trump's not going to get that done for you since he's made no attempt to actually investigate anything. Add to that that after the whistleblower complaint was filed the administration was required to pass it on within a short period like a few weeks but then sat on it for months afterwards in violation of the law. That combined with his blocking employees under subpoena from testifying makes a pretty clear case for obstruction of justice, which any other person would have been charged with if they'd taken his actions during the Russia investigation. "Who cares" is not a legitimate legal defense. And if a general "abuse of power" charge isn't an impeachable offense I guess we all owe Richard Nixon a big apology. Ehhhhh.....see this is what I mean by twisting it your way. These things you can call morally wrong - or even offenses, but they are in no way to be concluded with an impeachment. Don't bring up Nixon, because you can't compare the two crimes. Maybe in your mind it's convenient to just equate the two, but most people don't consider what Trump did to be anywhere near the level of Nixon. Now again, this is just your opinion and you're entitled to it, but you sound extremely inside your little bubble - because this event is not showing signs of raising a national scandal like Nixon or Clinton. And it's pretty obvious to me that Biden was someone who needed to be investigated. And because Biden is a crook, Trump has a legitimate testimony. There is two ends to this. Either he was attempting to get Ukraine to investigate Biden (which is reason enough for the action) or he was trying to embarrass Biden. If all he was doing is trying to embarrass Biden, again... that's weak sauce. The overall scandal is not as bad as the Watergate break-in but the articles of impeachment against Nixon weren't for the actual break-in. It was for his attempts to cover it up after the fact which are absolutely comparable to Trump's actions on Russia and Ukraine. You seem to be needlessly fixated on Trump's motives. Bribery is a crime regardless of why you do it. I only brought his motives up in my post because the only defense Trump could have is that it's a genuine attempt at an investigation, which it isn't. Outside of that if he broke the law he broke the law. The President can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Bribery and obstruction of justice constitute "high crimes".
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 2,114
|
Post by cherry68 on Dec 20, 2019 11:32:18 GMT
Difference between bribery, extortion and good manners.
A man has his hunting license renewed, then he gives the employee a little present. He suddenly stops asking, wait, isn't it bribery? The employee replies, no, because you do have the right to get this license, so you aren't giving me a present to get a license illegally. Then the man asks, but isn't it extortion? No, says the employee, because I already gave you the license, you gave me the present later, without me asking. But isn't it... asks the man again. Stop it, replies the employee, it isn't bribery nor extortion, these are just good manners.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Dec 20, 2019 12:37:40 GMT
mikediastavrone96 countjohn I knew beforehand some people are gonna conclude that "Biden is his opponent so therefore this action must be an attempt to water him down so Trump has an advantage in next election." But see...... digging up dirt on your opponent is common practice. Maybe Trump had an unorthodox way of doing it, but it's not considered cheating when you're simply trying to investigate your opponent trying to find something bad to make him look bad. It's dirty campaigning, but both the Democrats and Republicans do it. Don't tell me Hillary Clinton didn't pay people to dig up all that crap about Trump she mentioned during the debates, and during the entire race I'm sure you remember. And no.... bribery is not a crime regardless of why you do it. There are degrees of severity in the U.S. criminal justice system in every crime if you'll do your research. No idea what you're talking about here. If you don't understand the degrees of severity concept, i can't help you. If you bribe your neighbor, that's even a crime but nobody cares. If you bribe a police officer that's a crime - but I doubt they'll bother with a trial. Now if you bribe a judge in a capital murder case.... that's a crime punishable by lifetime imprisonment. Do you see what I mean? I do not see this case as Trump trying to save his ass through bribery, so no.... As for him tampering with the previous election. That's just b.s., and there hasn't been any evidence most people would bat an eye for. 6 or 7 users here are highly anti-Trump, so..... I'm not finding this conversation very surprising.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 20, 2019 21:46:40 GMT
mikediastavrone96 countjohn I knew beforehand some people are gonna conclude that "Biden is his opponent so therefore this action must be an attempt to water him down so Trump has an advantage in next election." But see...... digging up dirt on your opponent is common practice. Maybe Trump had an unorthodox way of doing it, but it's not considered cheating when you're simply trying to investigate your opponent trying to find something bad to make him look bad. It's dirty campaigning, but both the Democrats and Republicans do it. Don't tell me Hillary Clinton didn't pay people to dig up all that crap about Trump she mentioned during the debates, and during the entire race I'm sure you remember. And no.... bribery is not a crime regardless of why you do it. There are degrees of severity in the U.S. criminal justice system in every crime if you'll do your research. No idea what you're talking about here. If you don't understand the degrees of severity concept, i can't help you. If you bribe your neighbor, that's even a crime but nobody cares. If you bribe a police officer that's a crime - but I doubt they'll bother with a trial. Now if you bribe a judge in a capital murder case.... that's a crime punishable by lifetime imprisonment. Do you see what I mean? I do not see this case as Trump trying to save his ass through bribery, so no.... As for him tampering with the previous election. That's just b.s., and there hasn't been any evidence most people would bat an eye for. 6 or 7 users here are highly anti-Trump, so..... I'm not finding this conversation very surprising. Well no one is saying Trump should be impeached only for digging up dirt on a political opponent so I'm not sure who you're talking to there. If you pay a normal investigator to do it with campaign funds or your own money it's fine, you try to get a foreign government to do it with defense funds then you've got a problem. Not sure why this distinction is hard to understand. Although if you want to compare this to normal campaign opposition research that would mean Trump solicited campaign aid from a foreign government which is also illegal. Yes there are degrees of severity and I would say bribing a foreign government with defense department funds earmarked for national security purposes is pretty severe. If some DOD bureaucrat did something like that he'd be on his way to federal prison right now. Certainly not at all comparable to trying to pay off a cop to get out of a speeding ticket or get a hunting license as in the above example. Also, I'm not sure why you think bribery is a laxly enforced crime. People go to jail for it even if the reasons are petty or benign. For a couple examples this guy got 18 months in jail just for bribing cops to get info on car crash victims so he could make money directing them to lawyers- www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/maryland-man-sentenced-18-months-prison-bribing-dc-public-officialsThis guy got over a year in jail just for buying union leaders dinner and taking them golfing- www.mlive.com/news/flint/2019/08/ex-uaw-vice-president-sentenced-to-15-months-in-prison-for-bribery-scheme.htmlBoth of those are much more benign and closer to being "weak sauce" than what Trump did and resulted in prison sentences. The president should not be held to a lower standard than private citizens. Of course the Justice Department is not going to indict a sitting president so the only way to enforce the law here is to impeach.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 2,114
|
Post by cherry68 on Dec 20, 2019 22:59:49 GMT
I noticed something about the Ukrainian oil company wasn't brought up here. That company was already being investigated by Ukrainian police for bribery, and most of their managers have been indicted. Maybe Biden 's son was already under investigation, but his name wasn't publicly listed (not every investigation is publicly proclaimed). Maybe Ukraine didn't want to name foreign citizens until investigation is over and they're formally indicted. Especially if their relatives are important politicians.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Dec 21, 2019 1:37:49 GMT
mikediastavrone96 countjohn I knew beforehand some people are gonna conclude that "Biden is his opponent so therefore this action must be an attempt to water him down so Trump has an advantage in next election." But see...... digging up dirt on your opponent is common practice. Maybe Trump had an unorthodox way of doing it, but it's not considered cheating when you're simply trying to investigate your opponent trying to find something bad to make him look bad. It's dirty campaigning, but both the Democrats and Republicans do it. Don't tell me Hillary Clinton didn't pay people to dig up all that crap about Trump she mentioned during the debates, and during the entire race I'm sure you remember. And no.... bribery is not a crime regardless of why you do it. There are degrees of severity in the U.S. criminal justice system in every crime if you'll do your research. No idea what you're talking about here. If you don't understand the degrees of severity concept, i can't help you. If you bribe your neighbor, that's even a crime but nobody cares. If you bribe a police officer that's a crime - but I doubt they'll bother with a trial. Now if you bribe a judge in a capital murder case.... that's a crime punishable by lifetime imprisonment. Do you see what I mean? I do not see this case as Trump trying to save his ass through bribery, so no.... As for him tampering with the previous election. That's just b.s., and there hasn't been any evidence most people would bat an eye for. 6 or 7 users here are highly anti-Trump, so..... I'm not finding this conversation very surprising. Well no one is saying Trump should be impeached only for digging up dirt on a political opponent so I'm not sure who you're talking to there. If you pay a normal investigator to do it with campaign funds or your own money it's fine, you try to get a foreign government to do it with defense funds then you've got a problem. Not sure why this distinction is hard to understand. Although if you want to compare this to normal campaign opposition research that would mean Trump solicited campaign aid from a foreign government which is also illegal. Yes there are degrees of severity and I would say bribing a foreign government with defense department funds earmarked for national security purposes is pretty severe. If some DOD bureaucrat did something like that he'd be on his way to federal prison right now. Certainly not at all comparable to trying to pay off a cop to get out of a speeding ticket or get a hunting license as in the above example. Also, I'm not sure why you think bribery is a laxly enforced crime. People go to jail for it even if the reasons are petty or benign. For a couple examples this guy got 18 months in jail just for bribing cops to get info on car crash victims so he could make money directing them to lawyers- www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/maryland-man-sentenced-18-months-prison-bribing-dc-public-officialsThis guy got over a year in jail just for buying union leaders dinner and taking them golfing- www.mlive.com/news/flint/2019/08/ex-uaw-vice-president-sentenced-to-15-months-in-prison-for-bribery-scheme.htmlBoth of those are much more benign and closer to being "weak sauce" than what Trump did and resulted in prison sentences. The president should not be held to a lower standard than private citizens. Of course the Justice Department is not going to indict a sitting president so the only way to enforce the law here is to impeach. Ummm..... ordinary citizens are not put in the position Trump is. You can't compare the two. If you drive Taxis for a living, the likelihood of you getting calls from the traffic tickets department increases as well as your ability to garner car accidents. Based on the same logic, Trump is in a position of power. His actions regularly on a 24/7 basis deal with international coercion and the federal budget. Of course he has more opportunities to engage in actions which may appear to be illegal from a peripheral eye. So of course a President is not to be scrutinized under the same microscope as your minor cited research subjects which you make another blatant false equivalency to. Anyways........ I assure you most of your claims lots of people see as weak sauce. It doesn't seem like we're gonna agree here, but I don't see how this is even close to being an impeachment case. I'm actually laughing that it's even being considered one. The fact that the House of Representatives even got that document out is enough to denounce their credibility. But of course there exists thinking minded people in Congress - who shot it down fast - need I mention. Lastly, the central theme of Trump's motives was either digging up dirt or trying to incriminate Biden. I don't think he was trying to embarrass him. But either way, this is a normal day in the world of politics. You should try it before you sit on your computer doing mental gymnastics practice, covering the whole 9 yards, and throw out your personal interpretation of the law.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 21, 2019 1:41:04 GMT
Well no one is saying Trump should be impeached only for digging up dirt on a political opponent so I'm not sure who you're talking to there. If you pay a normal investigator to do it with campaign funds or your own money it's fine, you try to get a foreign government to do it with defense funds then you've got a problem. Not sure why this distinction is hard to understand. Although if you want to compare this to normal campaign opposition research that would mean Trump solicited campaign aid from a foreign government which is also illegal. Yes there are degrees of severity and I would say bribing a foreign government with defense department funds earmarked for national security purposes is pretty severe. If some DOD bureaucrat did something like that he'd be on his way to federal prison right now. Certainly not at all comparable to trying to pay off a cop to get out of a speeding ticket or get a hunting license as in the above example. Also, I'm not sure why you think bribery is a laxly enforced crime. People go to jail for it even if the reasons are petty or benign. For a couple examples this guy got 18 months in jail just for bribing cops to get info on car crash victims so he could make money directing them to lawyers- www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/maryland-man-sentenced-18-months-prison-bribing-dc-public-officialsThis guy got over a year in jail just for buying union leaders dinner and taking them golfing- www.mlive.com/news/flint/2019/08/ex-uaw-vice-president-sentenced-to-15-months-in-prison-for-bribery-scheme.htmlBoth of those are much more benign and closer to being "weak sauce" than what Trump did and resulted in prison sentences. The president should not be held to a lower standard than private citizens. Of course the Justice Department is not going to indict a sitting president so the only way to enforce the law here is to impeach. Lastly, the central theme of Trump's motives was either digging up dirt or trying to incriminate Biden. I don't think he was trying to embarrass him. But either way, this is a normal day in the world of politics. You should try it before you sit on your computer doing mental gymnastics and throw out your personal interpretation of the law. Are you in politics?
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Dec 21, 2019 1:47:03 GMT
Lastly, the central theme of Trump's motives was either digging up dirt or trying to incriminate Biden. I don't think he was trying to embarrass him. But either way, this is a normal day in the world of politics. You should try it before you sit on your computer doing mental gymnastics and throw out your personal interpretation of the law. Are you in politics? I'm not the one trying to sound like a know-it-all thinking I got the bases covered on this case - upon watching the news 3 hours a day.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 21, 2019 2:47:05 GMT
I'm not the one trying to sound like a know-it-all thinking I got the bases covered on this case - upon watching the news 3 hours a day. Look, which of these is the reason you think the whistleblower complaint over Ukraine is no big deal? a) Trump's bribery was not a crime. b) Bribery is a crime, but Trump's was not a severe one. c) Bribery is a crime, but it's not a big deal for a president given their position of power. You've said each one at some point and I'm just wondering which it is.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Dec 21, 2019 2:55:12 GMT
I'm not the one trying to sound like a know-it-all thinking I got the bases covered on this case - upon watching the news 3 hours a day. Look, which of these is the reason you think the whistleblower complaint over Ukraine is no big deal? a) Trump's bribery was not a crime. b) Bribery is a crime, but Trump's was not a severe one. c) Bribery is a crime, but it's not a big deal for a president given their position of power. You've said each one at some point and I'm just wondering which it is. I was just addressing every take countjohn made. He made some farfetched theories, I simply responded to him. But since you asked, d) All of the above. Dur. Except I'd put it more like this: a) Trump's bribery was not a crime b) Nor was it a severe one c) Nor is it anything significant, given his position of power No offense, sir. But I don't see how my claims are any more illogical than you attempting to indirectly dig out of a hat an election cheat scandal over this which isn't being interpreted as that by the larger media.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 21, 2019 3:01:42 GMT
Look, which of these is the reason you think the whistleblower complaint over Ukraine is no big deal? a) Trump's bribery was not a crime. b) Bribery is a crime, but Trump's was not a severe one. c) Bribery is a crime, but it's not a big deal for a president given their position of power. You've said each one at some point and I'm just wondering which it is. But I don't see how my claims are any more illogical than you attempting to indirectly dig out of a hat an election cheat scandal over this which isn't being interpreted as that by the larger media. The whistleblower complaint itself alleged Trump was using his power "to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.” I didn't pull anything out of a hat, I quoted the thing that started all this. I couldn't care less what the larger media painted it as.
|
|