I don’t know that many adults that act like Trump no. And we should want the best of us not the worst. If anything we should want someone who is barely a reflection of the average American’s understanding of government and patience.
It’s not a phantom quid pro quo, and anyone who reads beyond a Breitbart coloring book knows this. Hell, there’s even been a witness agree to that (but he claims he doesn’t think it was against the rules).
But let’s take a step back from mindless partisan idiocy and ask a basic question to Republicans/“conservatives”/Trumpkins:
-
If a president - any president, forget the current occupant - leveraged public power or money for his own private gain, is that a problem? Or not?
-
If it is a problem, what should be the remedy?
The way I see it:
-
Is it moral, legal and ethical for a politician to ask a foreign nation to investigate the potential behavior of an opponent? I think it can be convincingly argued that it is, if there was potentially illegal/corrupt behavior alleged. Especially since several members of Congress sent an open letter asking Ukraine to investigate Trump recently. I think those congressmen were acting in what they perceived as the legitimate interest of the US… and Trump can make the same argument. So this part does not pass the “high crimes and misdemeanors” bar.
-
Is it moral, legal and ethical for a President to discuss foreign aid with a foreign leader with dozens of people listening? Yes.
-
The thing you have to remember is that Dems have to prove a quid pro quo so ironclad that Senate Republicans are forced to pass it as well to actually remove the guy. It just isn’t there. There aren’t enough Jeff Flakes and Romneys to get it done.
-
The Dems had Trump (a NY liberal) ready to cooperate on gun control. A Republican president. They could have walked away with a huge legislative win, but they cut off their own nose. So if this impeachment isn’t successfull, what do they have to show for results of this Congress?
-
Trump will not win. That’s crazy talk. There’s absolutely no way the establishment gets stunned again.
-
An impeached Trump means a president pence.
2 Likes
“ a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.”
It is, by definition, illegal to exchange aid for political help, but it again depends on how much we want to stretch the truth to avoid making a connection here.
There also was no crimes alleged since the prosecution had rested, and there was no proof of wrongdoing. It was reopening a closed investigation against a political opponent in return for military aid.
Then why the worry? Let impeachment take its course. Would the Trumpkins be crying about a Trump led effort to lock up Hillary? Or something as ridiculous as the birther movement? Seems like the view of swings and misses is based on tribalism.
You don’t believe that.
He lost the popular vote so if anything, he’s a reflection of what a significant minority are.
Now, drink a big glass of common sense and answer:
- What, in Donald Trump’s public or private life, would lead you to believe he has a genuine and principled interest in rooting out corruption?
- Is there anything in three years of governing that you can point to where anti-corruption was a priority and he acted on it?
- If you were genuinely interested in rooting put corruption and you needed to investigate someone as a result, why on Earth would you insist that the investigator make a public announcement and disclosure that the target is being investigated - which puts said target on immediate notice to destroy evidence, cover their tracks, create a defense, etc.?
1 Like
US has a signed MLAT with Ukraine. Instead of sending an official MLAT request through State, Trump outsourced this “inquiry” to his personal lawyer and two Soviet-born wannabe mobsters who in turn were providing the White House with evidence fabricated by the second-in-command of the Russian mob who is fighting extradition to the US of all places.
1 Like
Looking into a candidate for president whose son has taken millions from Ukraine and 1.5 billion from China as a direct result of his father being vice President. The same candidate who says China isn’t an adversary.
If Dems looking into corrupt behaviour of Trump is them doing their job (it is), then Trump looking into Biden is as well. Trump is charged with executing the laws as the chief executive.
By the way, this is all coming from a view that we live in a Nietzche-ian ‘will to power’ world. If they can prove quid pro quo have at it. If Trump can prove Biden is crooked let him do that too. Let’s watch it all burn. I don’t think Trump’s motives are any purer than Schiff’s. The politicians deserve each other.
Is Trump the chief executive of the nation? Is he charged with executing the nation’s laws?
I’m not worried. I hope they get him if they can. I hope he gets biden too.
But I think the impeachment will fail. I think it was a tactical error.
Warren for president then.
…which Trump didn’t bother to do in three years of being in the WH, but coincidentally decided to look into Biden after Biden became the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination? It wasn’t a national priority for three years but suddenly it is?
Comedy gold. I seriously hope you didn’t type any of that “argument” with a straight face.
And what about the other questions? If Trump is legitimately interested in tackling corruption, why insist on a (very) public announcement by the Ukrainian government?
I almost had a stroke, @Basement_Gainz.
When I first read your reply; I thought you wrote “…I DO think Trump’s motives are purer…”
(And don’t forget, folks. As we speak…the Southern District of New York is quietly, and without fanfare, going about it’s work…)
1 Like
Yes, and yes - what’s your point?
I do think people (and initially myself included) are also mistaking @Basement_Gainz’s views as pro-trump, when he’s pointing out that the people impeaching bear a great burden of truth which basically can’t be spun and must be outright proven before we convict and remove the president, so I will add to @thunderbolt23 that while I agree with you, I think he’s laying out obvious arguments that people could use to throw doubt on these situations, no matter how obvious they are.
But being the Chief Executive would definitely mean you’d have to follow the law, one would think. And he did something illegal by soliciting foreign aid for political purposes, which, absent of a ‘could-we-say-this-in-court’ argument, is obviously what he did, so that’s illegal, and even if we overlook the Mueller report (that did NOT exonerate trump), Trump also altered a national weather service map, with a sharpie, and tried to pass it off to the American people as legitimate, and THATS illegal:
It doesn’t matter though. Nobody even remembers what constitutes guilty anymore because Trump has lied his way out of every accusation that has ever been lobbed his way, except for having to pay millions because he defrauded people with his university, of course - not a big deal that the president is a literal fraudster and criminal, though.
1 Like
Absolutely!
@loppar (and others) can confirm that I have written this before…the DEMS are just not good at this; by “this” I mean negative politicing and campaigning; misinformation;creating doubt and discord; disimination of misinformation; etc.
I DID not say they don’t try to do it…they just aren’t good at it.
Add Putin and FOX to the mix…and a POTUS obsessed with Twitter…and the DEMS look like kids playing a grown-mans game.
I’ll go on record as saying that this impeachment will take us about as close to proving Trump’s corruption as the Muller report did. Both will certainly expose his corruption; but that’s about it.
MAGA.
4 more years.
1 Like
Also - after 4 years of having the same republicans we’ve seen for years making all the decision and writing all the same tax cut laws, how is Trump still seen as not ‘the establishment’? He is the GOP. Every single one of them are now aligned with him in the pages of history. He’s the conservative establishment, he speaks at all the conservative conventions, he headlines everything conservative right now. Hillary was the liberal establishment (and received support from across the aisle due to being a money-hungry hypocrite who pandered to all things corrupt for campaign donations), and certainly represented the establishment while Trump was coming up, but I would heavily disagree with Basement’s assertion that Trump can’t ‘stun’ the establishment again, because since taking office, all the establishment republicans have gone from dismissing him as a disgusting con man to licking his boots. He is the establishment - him, Will Barr, and his senators and representatives.
You’re on a roll, @flappinit…!
What is the saying…first you despise something…then you tolerate it…then lastly you accept it with open arms? (or something like that).