Will this be normal now?

[Jose Fly]

In the impeachment saga, Republicans generally seem to agree there was nothing wrong with President Trump asking the Ukrainian President to investigate the Biden family (quid pro quo or not). If that argument prevails and Trump is not removed from office, does that then become standard practice for sitting presidents?

From here on out, as the election for a president's second term approaches and as their likely opponent becomes apparent, will it become standard practice for the president to find out if they and/or their family has ever had anything going on in a foreign country, and then--as president--call the leader of that country and ask them to start criminal investigations into the opponent and their family? Will it become normal for the president to even ask the foreign leader to work with the DoJ and the president's personal attorneys as part of that?

For the Trump supporters here...are you okay with that?

 

[sun rise]

Given the level of Trump party hypocrisy we're seeing in Congress, I'd bet the farm that they'll come with some excuse to say this time is different and then go after any Democrat that did 1/10 as much wrong as Trump is doing.

To the larger "new normal" question - I'd bet against it in the long run. History tells us that what Martin Luther King said is true eventually

 

[The Hammer]

Wikl it become the norm?

IDK, but it seems to set a dangerous precedent. I try to look at this from the angle that everything tRump is doing wrong (or illegal), is something another politician as done at some point, tRump is just brash enough to be caught about it because he won't be quiet.
What I am hoping is his inability to do things incognito, may actually help weed this BS out of politics.

 

[PureX]

In the impeachment saga, Republicans generally seem to agree there was nothing wrong with President Trump asking the Ukrainian President to investigate the Biden family (quid pro quo or not). If that argument prevails and Trump is not removed from office, does that then become standard practice for sitting presidents?

Only if they're republican. If a democrat president does it, it will once again become the most heinous and egregious of all possible crimes. Just as when the deficit increases under a democratic administration, it is tantamount to committing armed robbery against every citizen in the United States, while, when the deficit increases under a republican administration, it is, well, just the cost of doing business.

 

[Heyo]

If that argument prevails and Trump is not removed from office, does that then become standard practice for sitting presidents?

For sitting presidents? Is the president special? Why not for any and every politician?

 

[Revoltingest]

In the impeachment saga, Republicans generally seem to agree there was nothing wrong with President Trump asking the Ukrainian President to investigate the Biden family (quid pro quo or not).

How is it known that they believe it was acceptable?
I've been avoiding paying much attention to politicians,
but the impression I have is that they ostensibly don't
know if it was a quid pro quo for personal gain...
more of a lack of evidence matter.

 

[Jose Fly]

Only if they're republican. If a democrat president does it, it will once again become the most heinous and egregious of all possible crimes. Just as when the deficit increases under a democratic administration, it is tantamount to committing armed robbery against every citizen in the United States, while, when the deficit increases under a republican administration, it is, well, just the cost of doing business.

Sadly, you may be right. I'd really like to hear from some Trump supports on this though.

 

[sealchan]

In the impeachment saga, Republicans generally seem to agree there was nothing wrong with President Trump asking the Ukrainian President to investigate the Biden family (quid pro quo or not). If that argument prevails and Trump is not removed from office, does that then become standard practice for sitting presidents?

From here on out, as the election for a president's second term approaches and as their likely opponent becomes apparent, will it become standard practice for the president to find out if they and/or their family has ever had anything going on in a foreign country, and then--as president--call the leader of that country and ask them to start criminal investigations into the opponent and their family? Will it become normal for the president to even ask the foreign leader to work with the DoJ and the president's personal attorneys as part of that?

For the Trump supporters here...are you okay with that?

Let's restate the question like this...

If Obama was outed by a whistle-blower who said that they heard from other members of the administration that Obama was trying to get dirt on Trump (the Republican nomination for president) in 2016 by contacting someone like Erdogan in Turkey, let's say, and asking that leader to publicly announce an investigation into whether Trump is funneling money to Putin through the Trump Tower in Turkey and in exchange Obama promised that the U.S. would withdraw from Syria, would that be okay now according to those Republicans who argue Trump did nothing wrong?

 

[Jose Fly]

For sitting presidents? Is the president special? Why not for any and every politician?

True, but the POTUS is in a unique position of authority to do this sort of thing with other heads of state.

 

[sealchan]

How is it known that they believe it was acceptable?
I've been avoiding paying much attention to politicians,
but the impression I have is that they ostensibly don't
know if it was a quid pro quo for personal gain...
more of a lack of evidence matter.

What sort of evidence would you need? There are multiple witnesses who gave public testimony. There are statements from the President and Mulvaney themselves admitting this.

 

[Jose Fly]

How is it known that they believe it was acceptable?

Because they've been claiming that this is merely a "policy dispute" and the president has the authority to set his own foreign policy.

I've been avoiding paying much attention to politicians

Then I suggest you either start paying attention to what Republicans are saying, or you bow out of this thread.

but the impression I have is that they ostensibly don't
know if it was a quid pro quo for personal gain...
more of a lack of evidence matter.

As I noted in the OP, the quid pro quo question is irrelevant to the question at hand, i.e., is it okay for a President, as the next election approaches, to ask a foreign leader to conduct criminal investigations of his political rivals and/or their families?

 

[PureX]

Sadly, you may be right. I'd really like to hear from some Trump supports on this though.

All you're gonna hear from them is that they don't see any proof of "quid pro quo", because no amount of evidence will ever stand as proof of a crime, for them.

 

[Revoltingest]

What sort of evidence would you need? There are multiple witnesses who gave public testimony. There are statements from the President and Mulvaney themselves admitting this.

We hear many Trump foes convinced that he's guilty.
But to claim that Republicans will have the identical assessment is questionable.
Evidence should be about their beliefs, rather than attribution of belief by the other side.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because they've been claiming that this is merely a "policy dispute" and the president has the authority to set his own foreign policy.

That's a defense, rather than saying the opposition's claim is acceptable

Then I suggest you either start paying attention to what Republicans are saying, or you bow out of this thread.

Bless your heart.

As I noted in the OP, the quid pro quo question is irrelevant to the question at hand, i.e., is it okay for a President, as the next election approaches, to ask a foreign leader to conduct criminal investigations of his political rivals and/or their families?

This still doesn't support the quote I questioned....
"..... Republicans generally seem to agree there was nothing wrong with
President Trump asking the Ukrainian President to investigate the Biden family ..."
An alternative possibility is that they're not OK, but don't find it rising
to the level of warranting impeachment, conviction & removal.

But let's address the issue of whether such highly questionable,
wrongful appearing acts are the new norm. I think they've been
normal for several administrations, eg, Nixon & Clinton getting
away with wrongful acts (albeit different ones). I expect bad
behavior to continue. On the plus side, I predict that Trump's
boorish & inarticulate style of communicating is an anomaly.

 

[Laika]

If that argument prevails and Trump is not removed from office, does that then become standard practice for sitting presidents?

It's shouldn't be, but it looks almost certain. Unless the past three years have been an exceptional anomilie, we are probably going to continue in some variation of "Trumpland" for a few decades. (I wince as I say it frankly). Trump may have proven to be like Reagan or FDR in re-aligning U.S. politics so his impact will be bigger and larger than simply his time in office. We'll find out after the 2020 election. I'm hoping he's a blip but I am preparing myself for the alternative. I am not very confident the Democrats can assemble a united front and that might be enough to give him another narrow electoral college victory.

We are now basically living in that "cyberpunk" dystopia that we've seen in science fiction science fiction since the 1980's. This looks like it could well be a pattern for the future. God help us all.

 

[Jose Fly]

All you're gonna hear from them is that they don't see any proof of "quid pro quo", because no amount of evidence will ever stand as proof of a crime, for them.

The quid pro quo issue is irrelevant to my question of, is it okay for a President to ask foreign leaders to investigate his opponents and their families in the run-up to an election?

 

[Jose Fly]

That's a defense, rather than saying the opposition's claim is acceptable

Bless your heart.

This still doesn't support the quote I questioned....
"..... Republicans generally seem to agree there was nothing wrong with
President Trump asking the Ukrainian President to investigate the Biden family ..."
An alternative possibility is that they're not OK, but don't find it rising
to the level of warranting impeachment, conviction & removal.

Again, I suggest you pay attention to what Republicans are saying.

But let's address the issue of whether such highly questionable,
wrongful appearing acts are the new norm. I think they've been
normal for several administrations, eg, Nixon & Clinton getting
away with wrongful acts (albeit different ones). I expect bad
behavior to continue. On the plus side, I predict that Trump's
boorish & inarticulate style of communicating is an anomaly.

I'm not interested in vague references to "wrongful appearing acts". I'm specifically focused on the action Trump undertook (asking Zelenskiy to investigate the Biden family) that no one disputes occurred (since it's on the call transcripts), and whether Trump supporters consider that an acceptable practice that future presidents can engage in.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, I suggest you pay attention to what Republicans are saying.

When there's a request for support for a claim,
I suggest complying rather than objecting, &
using the old obviousness argument.

I'm not interested in vague references to "wrongful appearing acts". I'm specifically focused on the action Trump undertook (asking Zelenskiy to investigate the Biden family) that no one disputes occurred (since it's on the call transcripts), and whether Trump supporters consider that an acceptable practice that future presidents can engage in.

You've not established actual (criminal) wrongfulness.
And while I can see that having been likely, to presume
it's a foregone conclusion is an over-reach.
I'd prefer to see Trump tried in Congress.

 

[Jose Fly]

When there's a request for support for a claim,
I suggest complying rather than objecting, &
using the old obviousness argument.

You said yourself that you've not been paying attention to what Republicans are saying about this. It's not my role to correct that. If you're interested in the topic, then start paying attention.

You've not established actual (criminal) wrongfulness.
And while I can see that having been likely, to presume
it's a foregone conclusion is an over-reach.
I'd prefer to see Trump tried in Congress.

You've missed the point entirely. This isn't about whether or not what Trump did was criminal. I suggest you re-read the OP.

 

[BSM1]

Sadly, you may be right. I'd really like to hear from some Trump supports on this though.

Why?