Trump's Defenders: What would it Take?

[fantome profane]

Very poor analogy.

The reality is, the "WALLET" is already in trumps pocket (i.e. the aid) and it never BELONGED to ukraine. It was a gift.

Terrible analogy. Stupid matter of fact.

Care to try again?

Here, ill give you an analogy.

A homeless person comes up to me on the street and asks for money. I say ill buy you food, i wont give you money. The guy says hed rather money. I say no, take my offer or not. Thats my conditions. He says yes. I buy him food. We part ways.

That analogy is more like it!

Try this analogy. It is like you were a newly elected leader of an Eastern Europe country that was at war with Russia and if you didn’t agree to make an announcement about some garbage investigations into some ridiculous debunked conspiracy theories even more of your citizens were going to die in that war.

Actually, I’m sorry. That is a terrible analogy. It is exactly what happened.

 

[Jollybear]

Try this analogy. It is like you were a newly elected leader if a Eastern Europe country that was at war with Russia and if you didn’t agree to make an announcement about some garbage investigations into some ridiculous debunked conspiracy theories even more of your citizens were going to die in that war.

Actually, I’m sorry. That is a terrible analogy. It is exactly what happened.

Try this analogy.

It is like you were a newly elected leader of a Eastern Europe country that was at war with Russia and if you didn’t agree to make an announcement about some ligitimate investigations into some evil, NOT debunked clear cut conflict of interests that have evidence for it, even more of your citizens were going to die in that war.

So, they have a choice, surrender and not die or meet the conditions or dont get aid that your not intitled to anyway.

Care to try again?

 

[BSM1]

The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to remove duly elected presidents.

Again, no one is arguing that point. I hope you finally grasp one of the straws you seem to be reaching for.

 

[fantome profane]

Care to try again?

Actually I am quite satisfied with how this little exchange has gone, Thank you very much.

 

[Jollybear]

Ignore what they said.. Pay attention to what they did. Rick Perry may still have a smidgen of conscience about their failed attempt at screwing over the US taxpayer and the Ukraine.

Guess you noticed that the Russian money launderers from Mira Lago will plead the 5th.

How was the usa taxpayer screwed?

 

[Jollybear]

Actually I am quite satisfied with how this little exchange has gone, Thank you very much.

Well im not, so, try again.

Come on. Hop to it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, no, no, your misunderstanding the whole point.

The reality is this. Trump DID ask a favor from the ukraine president. FACT.

Trump did not DEMAND what he asked. FACT.

Trump wanted other countries to help ukraine. FACT.

The aid to ukraine was released. FACT.

Trump did say to sondland "i want no quid pro qoe. Tell zelinski i want nothing. Do the right thing." Paraphrase from memory. FACT.

All the "witness testimony" hearings all in unison admitted they had no evidence trump did wrong when they wer asked if they had evidence. FACT.

All the witnesses also admitted the bidens had the appearence of a conflict of interest with ukrain/burisma. FACT.

Now, those things HAPPENED.

What im telling you is, if hypothetically those things did not happen, like the aid was NOT released and trump DEMANDED a quid pro qoe, im saying that would have STILL NOT been wrong.

Trump did not DEMAND what he asked. FACT -- however, holding out money and a White House visit, while not demands, are very much akin to bribery, don't you think?

The aid to ukraine was released. FACT - incomplete fact, however, since the money was released only AFTER the White House was aware that the whistleblower had blabbed. Timing matters in these things.

Trump did say to sondland "i want no quid pro qoe. Tell zelinski i want nothing. Do the right thing." Paraphrase from memory. FACT This appears to be not so factual anymore. There is no White House record of a conversation with him on the date specified -- however, there is a record of a conversation a few days earlier that is much less friendly to Trump's case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, no one is arguing that point. I hope you finally grasp one of the straws you seem to be reaching for.

Seems you missed my point: the Democrats are trying to unseat a duly-elected president. It's something anyone should freely "admit."

The Democratic congress members happen to be doing it for justified reasons as part of their overall duty associated with their office, but your description of what they're doing is technically correct.

In the American system, only duly-elected presidents can get impeached. If a president was elected improperly, this would be an issue for the courts, not for the impeachment process.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nixon is a poor example. Trump is nothing like Nixon.

If he was , where is the equivalent of the tapes and where is the cover-up?

Trump has been open and obviously spoken his mind on the matter , and he's pretty transparent about it. He isn't hiding anything.

Nixon on the other hand tried to cover up everything. Tell me exactly what Trump has hidden? And exactly what precise law did Trump break?

The only obstruction I see here is the socialist Democrats interfering with his job as president of the United States. Maybe it's time to investigate the investigators.

You're right that Trump is nothing like Nixon.

He's much worse.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Mueller investigation found many cases of obstruction of justice.

That aside, I think that Trump is too stupid and too unethical to see that what he did was wrong, and he keeps firing advisors who try to give him good advice.

Of course he's too stupid and unethical to see what he did was wrong. If he were intelligent and ethical, he would have learned something from the Mueller Investgation.
Instead, the day after Mueller testifed before Congress, he was on the phone asking Zelensky to "do us a favour though." He learned nothing, will learn nothing and will continue to do whatever he wants. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No one is arguing that point.

You seem to be.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, no, no, your misunderstanding the whole point.

The reality is this. Trump DID ask a favor from the ukraine president. FACT.

Trump did not DEMAND what he asked. FACT.

Trump wanted other countries to help ukraine. FACT.

The aid to ukraine was released. FACT.

Trump did say to sondland "i want no quid pro qoe. Tell zelinski i want nothing. Do the right thing." Paraphrase from memory. FACT.

All the "witness testimony" hearings all in unison admitted they had no evidence trump did wrong when they wer asked if they had evidence. FACT.

All the witnesses also admitted the bidens had the appearence of a conflict of interest with ukrain/burisma. FACT.

Now, those things HAPPENED.

What im telling you is, if hypothetically those things did not happen, like the aid was NOT released and trump DEMANDED a quid pro qoe, im saying that would have STILL NOT been wrong.

Not sure what hearings you were watching.

This is just a list of Republican talking points, not grounded in reality. Of course, we've already been over them umpteen times.

Just an FYI for you ... that call where Trump told Sondland "no quid pro quo, I want nothing" came AFTER the whistleblower complaint was being made public. In other words, AFTER he was already caught. It doesn't matter anymore at that point, it's too late.

I have no clue where you got the idea that "all the 'witness testimony' in unison admitted they had no evidence Trump did wrong." All of their combined testimony all corroborates that there was a quid pro quo here, as well as a cover up.

Here's a question for you, if Trump thought Ukraine was as corrupt as he'd like us to believe, why would he ask them to investigate anything, never mind themselves? Do corrupt people usually carry out ethical investigations of themselves? It makes even less sense once you realize that Trump's got the DOJ, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, etc. at his disposal. Instead, he sends his personal lawyer, who holds absolutely no position in government and hasn't passed any security clearances whatsoever.

Also, if Trump was so worried about corruption in Ukraine, how come all he asked for (and apparently cared about) was a public television announcement that they were investigating the Bidens?

 

[BSM1]

Seems you missed my point: the Democrats are trying to unseat a duly-elected president. It's something anyone should freely "admit."

The Democratic congress members happen to be doing it for justified reasons as part of their overall duty associated with their office, but your description of what they're doing is technically correct.

In the American system, only duly-elected presidents can get impeached. If a president was elected improperly, this would be an issue for the courts, not for the impeachment process.

Sooo...you're finally admitting that Trump was duly elected. Good on you!

 

[BSM1]

You seem to be.

Then you haven't been paying attention...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sooo...you're finally admitting that Trump was duly elected. Good on you!

What do you mean "finally?"

Trump got the majority of electoral college votes, so he won the election.

In any sane system, Trump wouldn't have won, but he did win by the system that you have.

... and since winning, he's continually broken the law and committed a long string of impeachment-worthy offenses. I'm annoyed that the Democrats took as long as they did to start impeachment proceedings. Congress had a duty to throw Trump out of office a long time ago, and they've been derelict in not doing anything about it until now.

 

[BSM1]

What do you mean "finally?"

Trump got the majority of electoral college votes, so he won the election.

In any sane system, Trump wouldn't have won, but he did win by the system that you have.

... and since winning, he's continually broken the law and committed a long string of impeachment-worthy offenses. I'm annoyed that the Democrats took as long as they did to start impeachment proceedings. Congress had a duty to throw Trump out of office a long time ago, and they've been derelict in not doing anything about it until now.

On what charges?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On what charges?

Starting on day 1 and still continuing: violations of the emoluments clause.

Also:

- human rights abuses
- fraud
- obstruction of justice
- graft

And that's just off the top of my head.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Odd....
I remember being described as a "low potential high achiever" back in the day.

The GOP has since lowered the bar. "Bigly".

 

[sooda]

How was the usa taxpayer screwed?

Congress allotted money for Ukraine and Trump withheld it in order to try and gain advantage over a political opponent... Further, he was using it to get rid of Biden and both US Ambassadors to Ukraine and Russia to seize control of Naftagaz.

 

[Twilight Hue]

On what charges?

I would say the exact same thing Obama (Hillary) did when he asked for foreign powers to investigate Trump during the election.

For some reason the Socialist Democrats can't tell the difference.

Everyone knows there's no real charges to be levied. They're just pulling it all out of their asses and flinging poo against the wall to see what , if anything, sticks.