Impeachment

[Angus Avagadro]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Generally, I have disdain for any politician. The impeachment trial is unwatchable. Your eyes glaze over after about 60 sec. I actually felt sorry for the room of octogenarians, then quickly got over it and changed the channel.

 

[caligas]

Let's start with Joe Biden.

Oh wait, he's refusing to testify.

GUILTY!!!

oh, was Biden impeached?

for those voting for Trump:

do you agree with our intelligence briefings stating that Russia interfered with our election and intends to do so again?

my take is that they DO intend to interfere with our elections, the absolute bedrock of our democracy, and Trump not only fails to acknowledge this, he seemingly SUPPORTS it, because it helps him. To me, this alone should disqualify him in any rational person's mind and should far outweigh any excuses for supporting him such as a strong economy or support for his court nominees.

how am I wrong about that?

 

[Mikkel]

oh, was Biden impeached?

for those voting for Trump:

do you agree with our intelligence briefings stating that Russia interfered with our election and intends to do so again?

my take is that they DO intend to interfere with our elections, the absolute bedrock of our democracy, and Trump not only fails to acknowledge this, he seemingly SUPPORTS it, because it helps him. To me, this alone should disqualify him in any rational person's mind and should far outweigh any excuses for supporting him such as a strong economy or support for his court nominees.

how am I wrong about that?

Russia interfered. Everyone accepts that.

Google also interfered.

Facebook also interfered.

The Hillary Clinton campaign interfered (see FusionGPS).

The FBI interfered.

The CIA interfered.


Russia also helped Obama get reelected by promising to lay off of Russia in second term if they could help Obama win reelection.

Then Crimea and Ukraine happened.

 

[caligas]

Russia interfered. Everyone accepts that.

Google also interfered.

Facebook also interfered.

The Hillary Clinton campaign interfered (see FusionGPS).

The FBI interfered.

The CIA interfered.


Russia also helped Obama get reelected by promising to lay off of Russia in second term if they could help Obama win reelection.

Then Crimea and Ukraine happened.

OK, but you are not denying that you’re going to vote for someone who encourages Russia to interfere with our elections?

 

[Mikkel]

OK, but you are not denying that you’re going to vote for someone who encourages Russia to interfere with our elections?

Did you not see that Nancy Pelosi is calling on Facebook to interfere in US elections?

 

[caligas]

Did you not see that Nancy Pelosi is calling on Facebook to interfere in US elections?

If that’s true then I will not vote for her for president, Nor will I vote for anyone else that supports our greatest foreign adversary interfering with our democratic elections, regardless of how I feel about their other policies.

even if it turns out that Nancy Pelosi calling for Russian interference in our elections on Facebook is just bat-$hit crazy conspiracy theory nonsense, I would still agree not to vote for her for anything.

 

[cchoukal]

Let's start with Joe Biden.

Oh wait, he's refusing to testify.

GUILTY!!!

Joe Biden is unlikely to have testimony relevant to whether trump broke the law in this case. Whether Biden is guilty of corruption or nepotism or whatever wouldn’t excuse trumps behavior. He may be scum and may have broken the law, but he’s not the one under investigation, and even if he were guilty of something, that doesn’t allow trump to break the law.

 

[Lawpy]

Generally, I have disdain for any politician. The impeachment trial is unwatchable. Your eyes glaze over after about 60 sec. I actually felt sorry for the room of octogenarians, then quickly got over it and changed the channel.

I got really bored and apathetic.

 

[Leon'sMom]

Generally, I have disdain for any politician. The impeachment trial is unwatchable. Your eyes glaze over after about 60 sec. I actually felt sorry for the room of octogenarians, then quickly got over it and changed the channel.

Ask yourself this: Why is the room filled with octogenarians? Why do these politicians (with net worths in the tens of millions of dollars and government paid health insurance coverage for life) continue to work until they drop dead? Why do they not retire, like normal people do?

 

[Mikkel]

Joe Biden is unlikely to have testimony relevant to whether trump broke the law in this case. Whether Biden is guilty of corruption or nepotism or whatever wouldn’t excuse trumps behavior. He may be scum and may have broken the law, but he’s not the one under investigation, and even if he were guilty of something, that doesn’t allow trump to break the law.

Actually, if there's evidence that Biden committed abuse of power by withholding money from Ukraine, then Trump is absolutely in legal authority to investigate and get to the bottom of Biden's crimes in Ukraine.

 

[Mikkel]

If that’s true then I will not vote for her for president, Nor will I vote for anyone else that supports our greatest foreign adversary interfering with our democratic elections, regardless of how I feel about their other policies.

even if it turns out that Nancy Pelosi calling for Russian interference in our elections on Facebook is just bat-$hit crazy conspiracy theory nonsense, I would still agree not to vote for her for anything.

Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians to generate false information about Trump, to interfere in the election.

Did you vote for Hillary?

 

[caligas]

Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians to generate false information about Trump, to interfere in the election.

Did you vote for Hillary?

I didn’t KNOW about that and all the people she murdered when I voted for her. Of course I wouldn’t have voted for a murderer.

 

[Mikkel]

I didn’t KNOW about that and all the people she murdered when I voted for her. Of course I wouldn’t have voted for a murderer.

Please educate yourself:

Christopher Steele, Ex-British Intelligence Officer, Said to Have Prepared Dossier on Trump

A former British intelligence officer now working for a private security-and-investigations firm produced the dossier of unverified allegations about President-elect Donald Trump’s activities and connections in Russia, people familiar with the matter say.

www.wsj.com

 

[DokterMom]

hether trump broke the law in this case. Whether Biden is guilty of corruption or nepotism or whatever wouldn’t excuse trumps behavior. He may be scum and may have broken the law, but he’s not the one under investigation, and even if he were guilty of something, that doesn’t allow trump to break the law.

Actually, if there's evidence that Biden committed abuse of power by withholding money from Ukraine, then Trump is absolutely in legal authority to investigate and get to the bottom of Biden's crimes in Ukraine.

If Joe Biden's so dirty, why haven't we heard about it? I find it hard to believe that the Republicans couldn't turn up a whole lot more of whatever dirt there is... The only thing we've heard over and over again is how Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its [corrupt and ineffective] anti-corruption prosecutor at the behest of the US government and with the full support of most of Western Europe after said prosecutor had finished investigating Burisma for conduct that occurred before Biden's son joined the board. If you twist the timelines and omit some of the relevant details, it sounds like maybe there could be something there, but look closely and that whole "case" falls apart...

There are legitimate ways to investigate alleged wrong doings, many of them at Trump's legitimate disposal. Did he make use of them? No -- Also, note that the pressure was for "a public announcement," not for an actual investigation. Trump's notoriously sloppy (slippery?) about semantics, but this distinction was not a one-time slip.

That said - What does Biden's possible corruption have to do with Trump's abuses? Nothing. And what would Biden know about Trump's conduct? Again, nothing. The only purpose of Biden's potential testimony would be to distract from Trump's conduct and lend credibility to his accusations.

 

[Mikkel]

@caligas I forgive you for not knowing that Hillary paid for Russian disinformation to sabotage Trump's campaign since that info became public after the election, but it was never supposed to be made public and only did become public because Trump won.

 

[caligas]

I’ll ask the crowd again:

Trump seems to support foreign interference, by our enemy, in our fuc$ing elections!

Does anyone (besides the guy spewing conspiracy theories) have anything to say to HONESTLY defend that?

 

[Matty44]

I’ll ask the crowd again:

Trump seems to support foreign interference, by our enemy, in our fuc$ing elections!

Does anyone (besides the guy spewing conspiracy theories) have anything to say to HONESTLY defend that?

What exactly did he say in regard to supporting Russian interference? I’m genuinely curious (not being contentious) cause I haven’t heard any quotes or anything of him referencing being fine with Russian, or any foreign, interference.
Links?

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mikkel]

If Joe Biden's so dirty, why haven't we heard about it? I find it hard to believe that the Republicans couldn't turn up a whole lot more of whatever dirt there is... The only thing we've heard over and over again is how Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its [corrupt and ineffective] anti-corruption prosecutor at the behest of the US government and with the full support of most of Western Europe after said prosecutor had finished investigating Burisma for conduct that occurred before Biden's son joined the board. If you twist the timelines and omit some of the relevant details, it sounds like maybe there could be something there, but look closely and that whole "case" falls apart...

There are legitimate ways to investigate alleged wrong doings, many of them at Trump's legitimate disposal. Did he make use of them? No -- Also, note that the pressure was for "a public announcement," not for an actual investigation. Trump's notoriously sloppy (slippery?) about semantics, but this distinction was not a one-time slip.

That said - What does Biden's possible corruption have to do with Trump's abuses? Nothing. And what would Biden know about Trump's conduct? Again, nothing. The only purpose of Biden's potential testimony would be to distract from Trump's conduct and lend credibility to his accusations.

So you're saying it would have been better if Trump asked Barr to launch a criminal probe into Biden? Instead of asking an ally to look into corruption in his own country that just happened to involve Biden (who admitted to breaking the law by withholding Ukraine funding)?

Biden should be testifying under oath about what the heck he was doing in Ukraine with Hunter.

 

[caligas]

Matty,

He permits it. He does so because Russia helped him win.

 

[Mikkel]

I’ll ask the crowd again:

Trump seems to support foreign interference, by our enemy, in our fuc$ing elections!

Does anyone (besides the guy spewing conspiracy theories) have anything to say to HONESTLY defend that?

Hillary Clinton paid for Russian disinformation to sabotage Trump's election.

 

[cchoukal]

Actually, if there's evidence that Biden committed abuse of power by withholding money from Ukraine, then Trump is absolutely in legal authority to investigate and get to the bottom of Biden's crimes in Ukraine.

That would be important, if true, although I don't think that's what Trump is accusing Biden of. In any case, Trump's legal authority to ask the DOJ to investigate a US citizen who may have broken the law may or may not exist, but that's not what he did. He instead pressured the president of a foreign power to investigate (or announce an investigation of) a US citizen in exchange for releasing a hold on US aid, aid that was meant to help prevent Russia from further encroaching on an ally's sovereignty. Is THAT in his legal authority? Is that consistent with our legal, ethical, and strategic interest?

 

[Matty44]

Matty,

He permits it. He does so because Russia helped him win.

How exactly? Did he change laws compared to previous administrations? Did he fail to prosecute known interference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Ask yourself this: Why is the room filled with octogenarians? Why do these politicians (with net worths in the tens of millions of dollars and government paid health insurance coverage for life) continue to work until they drop dead? Why do they not retire, like normal people do?

I do ask myself that question and the answer is why i have disdain for all of them. They all go to DC and enrich themselves and their families. Then spend their career distracting the people with hot button topics, doing nothing to resolve them, so they can continue to distract the rest of us from observing them enrich themselves. Govt guaranteed loans to spouses and siblings, charities which your spouses sits as CEO, family members as lobbyists, influence peddling, and so on. Do folks with student debt really think the people who gave them the current student loan mess are going to change it if they are elected? Student loan interest rates are about twice what mortgages rates are.Home mortgages are just under 4%. Govt run student loans about by to 8%. Democrats took the loans away from private lenders and gave us the current system. Republicans could have lowered rates with government subsidies, and didnt. Both are equally to blame in my mind.
Phewww, Rant over. Sorry if I upset anyone. Vote 'em all out! Thanks for listening.

 

[caligas]

How exactly? Did he change laws compared to previous administrations? Did he fail to prosecute known interference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just one example is that he disputes his own administrations intelligence reports saying that Russia interfered with our elections. Where’s the integrity? where’s the leadership? It’s reprehensible.

 

[Leon'sMom]

If Joe Biden's so dirty, why haven't we heard about it? I find it hard to believe that the Republicans couldn't turn up a whole lot more of whatever dirt there is... The only thing we've heard over and over again is how Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its [corrupt and ineffective] anti-corruption prosecutor at the behest of the US government and with the full support of most of Western Europe after said prosecutor had finished investigating Burisma for conduct that occurred before Biden's son joined the board. If you twist the timelines and omit some of the relevant details, it sounds like maybe there could be something there, but look closely and that whole "case" falls apart...

There are legitimate ways to investigate alleged wrong doings, many of them at Trump's legitimate disposal. Did he make use of them? No -- Also, note that the pressure was for "a public announcement," not for an actual investigation. Trump's notoriously sloppy (slippery?) about semantics, but this distinction was not a one-time slip.

That said - What does Biden's possible corruption have to do with Trump's abuses? Nothing. And what would Biden know about Trump's conduct? Again, nothing. The only purpose of Biden's potential testimony would be to distract from Trump's conduct and lend credibility to his accusations.

"If Joe Biden's so dirty..." How does organized crime work? Think Mafia structure. Think The Godfather. The corrupt families operate right out in the open. How? They have control over: cops, police chiefs, accountants, lawyers, judges, politicians, media. Nobody rats on the Mafia. They function with impunity to the detriment of law-abiding citizens and businesses and the legitimate criminal and media establishments. Speak up and you get blackballed from your career or worse.

"There are legitimate ways to investigate..." Oh, yes, there are. Just stay tuned for AG Durham's indictments!

"What does Biden's corruption have to do with Trump's abuses?" It all boils down to this: Was Trump "digging up dirt on a political rival" (D claim of abuse) or "asking for help in a criminal investigation that involved the Biden family" (R claim of no abuse)?

In order to assess if R claim is legitimate, you need to be able to provide evidence and testimony of people who can attest to the fact that there were crimes, how those crimes were being covered up, and how Trump was investigating those crimes. For the D's to say that the Biden family is irrelevant is equivalent to the D's saying that any crimes or investigation were irrelevant, which then supports the idea that this was merely an abuse of Trump's power for political reasons.

By international treaty, Trump was within the law to ask Ukraine to help out the US in a criminal investigation, regardless of who was at the center of the investigation. (Biden was not even a candidate at that time.) Trump asked for evidence "for us" (the American people) in a criminal investigation. After all, it is the US taxpayers from whom the billions of dollars have been stolen. There should not be a differentiation between people who are politicians and non-politicians when it comes to application of our laws. Being a political candidate should not shield anyone or anyone's family.

If you think delaying aid was a crime, it is within current practice to ensure the money is going to be used 'correctly' first.
If you think delaying aid was abuse of power, see above.
If you think delaying aid was a coercive tactic, see transcript and Ukraine's President's own statement of no pressure.

The D's don't want any focus put on the Biden family's crimes. They want you to think that this was all for Trump's personal political gain. Can it not be argued that this entire protracted impeachment is a D tactic for their own political gain? Why the 33 day delay to get the articles to the Senate? The needless blathering on for days regurgitating the D's weak case? The unceasing MSM badmouthing of Trump less than 10 months before Election Day 2020? Oh, no, none of that could be for political purposes, could it? Is that abuse of power?

 

[vector2]

Trump was against and still disputes the Mueller investigation which ended up indicting 12 Russian nationals for hacking and Kilimnik for obstruction of justice. Trump has had Kislyak over to the WH twice- unprecedented for a Russian who's not president or PM.

Also:

On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort had a meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya after being promised information about Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. told The New York Times the meeting was about the Magnitsky Act.[132] However, in emails proposing the meeting, publicist Rob Goldstone did not mention the Magnitsky Act and instead promised "documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump", to which Donald Trump Jr. responded, "if it's what you say I love it."[133][134]

Also also:

Also also also:

There's a pretty good chance that large loans Deutsche Bank gave Trump were underwritten by a Russian state-owned bank. which is not surprising at all because he's suing everybody and their mother to keep his financial records under wraps.



Also also also also:

 

[Matty44]

Just one example is that he disputes his own administrations intelligence reports saying that Russia interfered with our elections. Where’s the integrity? where’s the leadership? It’s reprehensible.

Trump bashes Mueller and anyone else involved with people trying to take him down. And he’s denied that it was the Russians who were responsible for getting him elected. He’s an egomaniac who definitely wants all the credit for being elected.

I think that’s a stretch to go from that to saying he supports foreign interference in our elections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[caligas]

Trump bashes Mueller and anyone else involved with people trying to take him down. And he’s denied that it was the Russians who were responsible for getting him elected. He’s an egomaniac who definitely wants all the credit for being elected.

I think that’s a stretch to go from that to saying he supports foreign interference in our elections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“They said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia,”

“I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be, So, I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”

 

[DokterMom]

I think that’s a stretch to go from that to saying he supports foreign interference in our elections.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about the part where Trump told George Stephanopolis in a televised interview that he would still accept election assistance from the Russians?

So you're saying it would have been better if Trump asked Barr to launch a criminal probe into Biden? Instead of asking an ally to look into corruption in his own country that just happened to involve Biden (who admitted to breaking the law by withholding Ukraine funding)?

Biden should be testifying under oath about what the heck he was doing in Ukraine with Hunter.

Yes, absolutely. If we have reason to believe Biden was involved in corrupt activities in Ukraine (Joe, not Hunter -- unless you also want to scrutinize Ivanka, Jared, Don Jr, Eric and Tiffany's nepotism) then the US government is exactly who you would/should ask to investigate. And the ask would be for an investigation, not a public announcement.

"If Joe Biden's so dirty..." How does organized crime work? Think Mafia structure. Think The Godfather. The corrupt families operate right out in the open. How? They have control over: cops, police chiefs, accountants, lawyers, judges, politicians, media. Nobody rats on the Mafia. They function with impunity to the detriment of law-abiding citizens and businesses and the legitimate criminal and media establishments. Speak up and you get blackballed from your career or worse.

🤣

Good one! Oh wait - you're serious?

😱😳

"There are legitimate ways to investigate..." Oh, yes, there are. Just stay tuned for AG Durham's indictments!

"What does Biden's corruption have to do with Trump's abuses?" It all boils down to this: Was Trump "digging up dirt on a political rival" (D claim of abuse) or "asking for help in a criminal investigation that involved the Biden family" (R claim of no abuse)?

In order to assess if R claim is legitimate, you need to be able to provide evidence and testimony of people who can attest to the fact that there were crimes, how those crimes were being covered up, and how Trump was investigating those crimes. For the D's to say that the Biden family is irrelevant is equivalent to the D's saying that any crimes or investigation were irrelevant, which then supports the idea that this was merely an abuse of Trump's power for political reasons.

Yeah - you do need to "provide evidence and testimony of people who can attest to the fact that there were crimes, how those crimes were being covered up, and how Trump was investigating those crimes." This hasn't been done. At All.

 

[GaseousClay]

Joe Biden is unlikely to have testimony relevant to whether trump broke the law in this case. Whether Biden is guilty of corruption or nepotism or whatever wouldn’t excuse trumps behavior. He may be scum and may have broken the law, but he’s not the one under investigation, and even if he were guilty of something, that doesn’t allow trump to break the law.

Well Schiff spoke yesterday saying the corruption charges against the Bidens were proven false, thus bringing in a reason for them to call Hunter in as a witness.

 

[caligas]

“Do you hold Russia at all accountable for anything in particular, and if so, what would you consider that they are responsible for?”

TRUMP: “Yes, I do. I hold both countries responsible. I think that the United States has been foolish. I think we’ve all been foolish.”

 

[vector2]

Most recent Pew Polling:

I had to read the headline of the following one a couple times....but really it's just one more piece of data that confirms that the most fervent trumpists are in a personality cult and think he should be king for life

By a Narrow Margin, Americans Say Senate Trial Should Result in Trump’s Removal

As the Senate impeachment trial gets underway, about half of Americans say Donald Trump should be removed from office. A 63% majority say Trump definitely or probably has committed illegal acts, either in office or while running for president.

www.people-press.org

 

[GaseousClay]

yes that really confirms what you're saying. they are likely just as deranged as you are.

 

[Leon'sMom]

I, personally, want lots and lots of witnesses called. The more the merrier. I want Schiff, the pathological liar, to explain his make-believe whistleblowers. I want Hunter on the stand trying to deny his crimes. (However, I predict that Hunter will soon die "due to a drug overdose" because of "all of the stress he's been under." What better way to deflect and drum up sympathy for the Biden family? After all, somebody needs to be "sacrificed" for "the cause." Hunter is going to be the one. But, I digress...) Let Mulvaney, Bolton, and Rudy take the stand. Hell, I want Trump, himself, to take the stand. That would be Must See TV! They wanted a Senate trial. I say give them a real trial. The only ones being damaged by this impeachment charade are the Dems and their lap dogs, aka MSM. In the end, Trump will be acquitted 53-47. If you think this is hurting Trump, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Mikkel]

Yes, absolutely. If we have reason to believe Biden was involved in corrupt activities in Ukraine (Joe, not Hunter -- unless you also want to scrutinize Ivanka, Jared, Don Jr, Eric and Tiffany's nepotism) then the US government is exactly who you would/should ask to investigate. And the ask would be for an investigation, not a public announcement.

So you're perfectly fine with Barr investigating the CIA and FBI for criminal misconduct related to opening the anti Trump spy campaign?

 

[cchoukal]

Well Schiff spoke yesterday saying the corruption charges against the Bidens were proven false, thus bringing in a reason for them to call Hunter in as a witness.

I guess what I'm saying is that whether they're guilty or not is irrelevant. That's an entirely different investigation. The investigation at hand is whether Trump broke the law, and the Bidens wouldn't have any relevant testimony on that. You are imagining that if you could prove the Bidens were guilty by cross-examining them, that we'd all of a sudden be like, "oh, then Trump was justified in what he did," but literally no one would say that. It's like saying it's okay for Trump to be corrupt because the Bidens were corrupt first. I just don't agree with that reasoning.

To me, the evidence points to Trump breaking a law by withholding aid in order to pressure the Ukraine to help his election prospects, when doing so would inadvertently help Russia, with whom we have a very adversarial relationship. I believe that such an action is counter to our strategic interests. You might well say that I'm biased as a democrat to seeing the evidence that way, but the same would be true for you, that you see the evidence a certain way because you're a republican. But at the end of the day, what is so striking to me, is that a) no one is saying he didn't do it, b) no one is seriously saying it wasn't illegal, and c) no one is saying that helping Russia by handicapping Ukraine's defense capabilities is good for the US. Instead they're saying, "Oh, but the Bidens," or "oh, but the economy," or whatever. That's not a defense of his actions.

 

[Matty44]

I guess what I'm saying is that whether they're guilty or not is irrelevant. That's an entirely different investigation. The investigation at hand is whether Trump broke the law, and the Bidens wouldn't have any relevant testimony on that. You are imagining that if you could prove the Bidens were guilty by cross-examining them, that we'd all of a sudden be like, "oh, then Trump was justified in what he did," but literally no one would say that. It's like saying it's okay for Trump to be corrupt because the Bidens were corrupt first. I just don't agree with that reasoning.

To me, the evidence points to Trump breaking a law by withholding aid in order to pressure the Ukraine to help his election prospects, when doing so would inadvertently help Russia, with whom we have a very adversarial relationship. I believe that such an action is counter to our strategic interests. You might well say that I'm biased as a democrat to seeing the evidence that way, but the same would be true for you, that you see the evidence a certain way because you're a republican. But at the end of the day, what is so striking to me, is that a) no one is saying he didn't do it, b) no one is seriously saying it wasn't illegal, and c) no one is saying that helping Russia by handicapping Ukraine's defense capabilities is good for the US. Instead they're saying, "Oh, but the Bidens," or "oh, but the economy," or whatever. That's not a defense of his actions.

Your comments here are based on two assumptions. You ASSUME withholding the aid helped the Russians, when Trump has been giving more aid to Ukraine than Obama ever did. So was Obama helping Russia????? And two, you’re claiming that he withheld the aid to help his election prospects by investigating someone that wasn’t even running for president at the time.

Do you not see any problem with those two assumptions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[caligas]

Your comments here are based on two assumptions. You ASSUME withholding the aid helped the Russians, when Trump has been giving more aid to Ukraine than Obama ever did. So was Obama helping Russia????? And two, you’re claiming that he withheld the aid to help his election prospects by investigating someone that wasn’t even running for president at the time.

Do you not see any problem with those two assumptions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t understand, when did Obama withhold aid from Ukraine?

And are you saying that Biden wasn't running when Trump withheld the aid, so that makes it legitimate? Surely you understand that he was a leading presidential contender, official or not.

 

[cchoukal]

Your comments here are based on two assumptions. You ASSUME withholding the aid helped the Russians, when Trump has been giving more aid to Ukraine than Obama ever did. So was Obama helping Russia????? And two, you’re claiming that he withheld the aid to help his election prospects by investigating someone that wasn’t even running for president at the time.

Do you not see any problem with those two assumptions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the same deliberate obfuscation that's been so central to the Trump defense. How much congress appropriated during the Obama (or Hebert Hoover) administration is irrelevant. Congress appropriated whatever the amount was, and Trump held it back to create pressure for an investigation. Again, maybe my liberal, anti-trump bias, right? but it's really hard for me to see how that doesn't constitute a benefit to Russia. And whether Biden had formally thrown his hat into the ring or not is maybe meaningful, but everyone assumed he'd run. He'd had an exploratory committee, raised money, etc.

So I'll ask again: do you think that limiting Ukraine's defenses/deterrent ability against Russia is good for the US?

 

[Mikkel]

I guess what I'm saying is that whether they're guilty or not is irrelevant. That's an entirely different investigation. The investigation at hand is whether Trump broke the law, and the Bidens wouldn't have any relevant testimony on that. You are imagining that if you could prove the Bidens were guilty by cross-examining them, that we'd all of a sudden be like, "oh, then Trump was justified in what he did," but literally no one would say that. It's like saying it's okay for Trump to be corrupt because the Bidens were corrupt first. I just don't agree with that reasoning.

To me, the evidence points to Trump breaking a law by withholding aid in order to pressure the Ukraine to help his election prospects, when doing so would inadvertently help Russia, with whom we have a very adversarial relationship. I believe that such an action is counter to our strategic interests. You might well say that I'm biased as a democrat to seeing the evidence that way, but the same would be true for you, that you see the evidence a certain way because you're a republican. But at the end of the day, what is so striking to me, is that a) no one is saying he didn't do it, b) no one is seriously saying it wasn't illegal, and c) no one is saying that helping Russia by handicapping Ukraine's defense capabilities is good for the US. Instead they're saying, "Oh, but the Bidens," or "oh, but the economy," or whatever. That's not a defense of his actions.

If Biden is guilty of anything, then Trump is completely within legal authority to ask a foreign government to investigate.

 

[Matty44]

I don’t understand, when did Obama withhold aid from Ukraine?

And are you saying that Biden wasn't running when Trump withheld the aid, so that makes it legitimate?

I’m saying that if the concern is that Trump is aiding the Russians by not giving Ukraine military aid, that’s a weak argument, because he has giving more lethal aid (Javelins etc) than Obama. Obama didn’t give any lethal aid to Ukraine.

And I’m saying that the claim of Trump bribing the Ukrainians to investigate Biden for the sole purpose of hurting a political opponent is a weak one when at the time he allegedly bribed the Ukrainians, Biden was not a political opponent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[caligas]

I’m saying that if the concern is that Trump is aiding the Russians by not giving Ukraine military aid, that’s a weak argument, because he has giving more lethal aid (Javelins etc) than Obama. Obama didn’t give any lethal aid to Ukraine.

And I’m saying that the claim of Trump bribing the Ukrainians to investigate Biden for the sole purpose of hurting a political opponent is a weak one when at the time he allegedly bribed the Ukrainians, Biden was not a political opponent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the issue is not how much aid Trump has given to Ukraine (he doesn’t by the way, Congress appropriates it). The issue is that Trump ILLEGALLY withheld the aid THAT CONGRESS HAS ALEADY APPROPRIATED as a way to coerce Ukraine to help Trump cheat in an election.

And you cant POSSIBLY believe that Trump didn’t see Biden as a political opponent at the time, that’s absurd.

 

[Matty44]

the issue is not how much aid Trump has given to Ukraine (he doesn’t by the way, Congress appropriates it). The issue is that Trump ILLEGALLY withheld the aid THAT CONGRESS HAS ALEADY APPROPRIATED as a way to coerce Ukraine to help Trump cheat in an election.

And you cant POSSIBLY believe that Trump didn’t see Biden as a political opponent at the time, that’s absurd.

I’m saying that he wasn’t currently (at the time) running for any office, and even now he might not be an opponent for Trump if he doesn’t get the nomination. It’s a lot of assumptions, the one, he would decide to run, and two, that he’s get the nomination, to say that Trump was trying to hurt a political opponent.

It’s not like it was Biden vs Trump in the general and then Trump tried to dig up dirt at that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[caligas]

I’m saying that he wasn’t currently (at the time) running for any office, and even now he might not be an opponent for Trump if he doesn’t get the nomination. It’s a lot of assumptions, the one, he would decide to run, and two, that he’s get the nomination, to say that Trump was trying to hurt a political opponent.

It’s not like it was Biden vs Trump in the general and then Trump tried to dig up dirt at that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

so you don’t think Trump viewed Biden as a leading political rival when he withheld that aid? You don’t believe trump wanted dirt to help him take Biden down?

 

[GaseousClay]

so you don’t think Trump viewed Biden as a leading political rival when he withheld that aid? You don’t believe trump wanted dirt to help him take Biden down?

i think biden and his son was corrupt. Don't think theres any fear from Trump about him in an election, hes a bumbling fool.

 

[caligas]

i think biden and his son was corrupt. Don't think theres any fear from Trump about him in an election, hes a bumbling fool.

It’s just such a ridiculous stance that you are taking, that Trump is a crusader to stamp out corruption, that he was not out for dirt on the Bidens when he illegally withheld aid to Ukraine as a way to pressure them into announcing an investigation. It’s laughable and you shouldn’t be selling it.

 

[caligas]

I’m saying that he wasn’t currently (at the time) running for any office, and even now he might not be an opponent for Trump if he doesn’t get the nomination. It’s a lot of assumptions, the one, he would decide to run, and two, that he’s get the nomination, to say that Trump was trying to hurt a political opponent.

It’s not like it was Biden vs Trump in the general and then Trump tried to dig up dirt at that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Zelinski call was July, Biden announced in April.

 

[caligas]

i think biden and his son was corrupt. Don't think theres any fear from Trump about him in an election, hes a bumbling fool.

 

[GaseousClay]

It’s just such a ridiculous stance that you are taking, that Trump is a crusader to stamp out corruption, that he was not out for dirt on the Bidens when he illegally withheld aid to Ukraine as a way to pressure them into announcing an investigation. It’s laughable and you shouldn’t be selling it.

Aid given during the allotted time, no announcement released, no pressure stated by President Z so good luck with that. Also i dont feel he is out to stamp corruption but he knew things were corrupt there and wanted something to pin on democrats and Biden. Don't really think it was out of fear of the election is all im saying. calm your trump hate. I have no love for him just think you liberals are delusional and are destroying democracy with this sham.

 

[vector2]

View attachment 293557

Manafort - jail
Cohen - jail
Flynn - jail
Gates - jail
Papadopoulos - jail
Guiliani - under investigation
Giuliani's goons - indicted

Price - insider trading
Chao - graft
Zinke - graft
Pruitt - graft
Verna - graft
Acosta - resigned for going soft on pedophile Epstein
Perry - resigned for Ukraine scandal involvement