Senate GOP Weighs New Impeachment Defense of Trump: Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Happened, But No ‘Corrupt Intent’
Senate Republicans are reportedly mulling a new impeachment defense — one that would break with the claims of its own defendant, President Donald Trump — by acknowledging that the White House did try to force a quid pro quo on Ukraine, but that it doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment because Trump did so without “corrupt intent.”
According to a Washington Post report , Republican senators like Ted Cruz and John Kennedy discussed at a recent closed-door lunch consolidating around an argument that aligns very closely with the testimony of to Trump NSC official Tim Morrison . On Thursday, Morrison corroborated pervious testimony of White House officials who linked the release of military aid to the launching investigations into Democrats by Ukraine, but he also claimed that he felt that the action wasn’t illegal.
“Inside the lunch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who ran against Trump in 2016, said a quid pro quo is not illegal unless there is ‘corrupt intent,'” the Post reports.
“To me, this entire issue is gonna come down to, why did the president ask for an investigation,” Louisiana Republican Sen. Kennedy, told the Post . “To me, it all turns on intent, motive. … Did the president have a culpable state of mind? … Based on the evidence that I see, that I’ve been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind.”
This latest possible turn in messaging from the president’s party highlights the difficult position the House Democrats’ impeachment hearings have put Republicans in. After Trump and other Congressional Republicans rallied around a “no quid pro quo” defense when the July 25 call summary was released, subsequent impeachment testimony by Trump White House officials has repeatedly undermined that claim.
This lame defense is based on the contention that Trump is too stupid to have known what he was doing.
Ah! I see now. It is the Hillary defense!
The genius didn't know what he was doing?
Everything Trump has ever done in his life has been corrupt. His daddy taught him.
And then his daddy shipped him off to military school where he was a bully.
He remains a bully. He is fat and ugly. He is stupid and ignorant.
If I had an incurable fatal disease I would ………………………………………...
Wow, an honest defense from the Republicans?
Well, he is too stupid to know, but it is no excuse.
Wally, you do understand that Ukraine was never investigating Hunter Biden.....don't you???
Faux 'news' has stories all over the place about this investigation that never happened and the tRump trolls believe it like gospel.
Were they investigating Burisma Holdings Ltd, before "Vice President" Joe Biden did his proudly announced "Prid Quo Pro" ?
Seems...once the investigation was "Mob Like" discontinued.....Little "Sleepy Joe" got involved and sat on the "Board of Burisma Holdings Ltd." (He Admitted he knew nothing about what he was supposed to do). Nothing like getting rid of an investigation on a "Corrupt" company, so Little "Sleepy Joe" can make 10's of thousands a month....huh.
AND back before they ever hired Hunter Biden? Yes.
History is your friend, if you'd bother looking it up.
After getting the Ukraine prosecutor fired, the replacement reopened the Burisma investigation that the fired prosecutor refused to look into.
Isn't it great that "Sleepy Joe" got rid of any investigation into Burisma Holdings Ltd, by using "Prid Quo Pro", and then his "Sleepy I don't know anything about Energy Son" was able to step in and be on the board of Burisma Holdings Ltd, so he can make 10's of thousands of dollars every month, for "Knowing Nothing" about the business ?
You mean an investigation that wasn't being investigated? I hope you have a good chiropractor, the amount of twisting you are doing is going to throw something out.
So "Sleepy Smurf" was doing his "Prid Quo Pro" thingy over "Nothing" ?
I hope you have a good chiropractor, the amount of twisting you are doing is going to throw something out.
Why do you ignore everything that has been written about this???
Biden's Quid Pro Quo was BECAUSE THE PROSECUTOR REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION! His actions were supported by multiple countries, not for personal reasons.
If you've been paying attention at all these days ….. Anything "Quid Pro Quo".... is just BAD and worth getting rid of "THE" person !
Ahhh, another worthless opinion...
LInk please!
Great response !
Sooooo…."Quid Pro Quo" ISN'T really a Bad thing ?
[deleted]
In whose "Wonderful" mind ?
[Deleted]
"Quid Pro Quo" is a THING a tool, nothing more. How it is used is what determines if it is good or bad. You know, like guns.
And whom is it that "Determines that ?
The coup d'état folks ?
Dude, you can't be that ignorant of American legal processes, I can only assume you are just trying to distract and deflect from the facts of the matter.
The "law" determines if it is utilized in a legal or illegal manner. Again, just like guns.
Can you shoot a gun at a target? Yes, that is legal.
Can you shoot a gun at a random person? No, that would be illegal.
Recycled from comment 1.5.20 Ozzwald...…. "Dude, you can't be that ignorant."
The "Law" determines nothing on utilization. A person or persons do.
So again.…" Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law" ?
Maybe expanding a bit more would help you in looking better ?
The "Law" lives, breaths and takes folks to court ?
You just keep digging, maybe you'll find your way to a country that'll make sense to you.
1.5.20 Ozzwald - The "law" determines if it is utilized in a legal or illegal manner.
Maybe this will help ?
Only YOU - can determine how to utilize a Law.
utilize - [ˈyo͞odlˌīz]
VERB
make practical and effective use of.
The "Law" can't do that by itself.
So now you are claiming that laws are optional? That it is YOUR choice whether they apply to you or not?
"But your honor, I know that I pointed a gun at that man, and took all his money, but I chose NOT TO UTILIZE that armed robbery law at that time!"
I did ?
Where ?
Using your silly little gun thingy argument:
Do Guns shoot people, or do people USE guns to shoot people.
Just like:
Do the "Laws" convict people, or do people USE the "Law" to convict people.
Sooooo ..… Again I'll ask ……. "Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law"
You say that, then bring out an argument that has nothing to do with what I said.
It sure did !
Again I'll ask ……. "Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law"
<sigh> You just don't understand how American law works.<sigh>
Okay, in your twisted version of justice, currently no one is determining if Trump broke the law, DOJ does not allow indictments of a sitting President, so no court of law at this time. When he is no longer President, that will be different, I believe he is up for various crimes in the state of New York.
So Schiff and his committee are just giving us "Enjoyment" by putting on a simple "Circus" ?
Trying to save yourself with ZERO ?
Okay, so in your mind, House committees are now courts of law?? Impeachment is a political action, not a judicial one.
You do understand the difference, don't you???
Can they get the President of the United States (Commander and chief of this country) Impeached and out of office ?
Moving the goalpost??? You keep saying...
Now that you have been shown the fallacy of your claim, you are trying to backtrack and change the claim that you have been repeating over and over?
Question remains the same:
"Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law" ?
Yep. Time for Trump to be in prison.
And the answer remains the same. There is no criminal trial, so no one is determining if Trump has broken the law.....yet.
Were you in the "Matrix".
Were you in "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest"?
1) The call was perfect and beautiful.
2) The call was perfect and beautiful and Biden may have been brought up in the conversation.
3) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden.
4) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden but there was no quid pro quo.
5) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden and there may have bee a quid pro quo but it's not an impeachable crime.
What next?
6) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden and there was a quid pro quo and it's a crime but only on the 7th Thursday of each month when standing on one foot.
7) My impeachment was best, biggest and most beautiful in the history of the entire universe because, I think, I know more about impeachment than anyone.
8) But Obama....
9) But Clinton . . . .
But James Madison....
But Lincoln....
As long as we are blaming, lets do it.
Deflection! With cleavage........
Linda Carter was hot as hell.
Off topic, but OHHHHH YEAHHHHHH!!!
Let me guess, my friend MrFrost. In a word: BOOBIES!!! (Smile.)
She is still beautiful.
Which Biden story? The real one, or the made up tin foil hat loony bin right wingbat story?
No, it really isn't. There is literally no proof of any wrongdoing AT ALL. Just another conspiracy theory thrown out there by trump. No different than him claiming windmills cause cancer.
Biden was acting as a representative of the USA with international support in getting the prosecutor fired because said prosecutor refused to prosecute cases of corruption. Trump, on the other hand was acting in his own best interests to get help with his campaign. Nothing that would benefit the country. Now you can ignore all the other things that are wrong here but the fact that trump would use aid from another country for help winning a US election is likely one of the most unpatriotic things a president could do. Trump is always screaming about how patriotic he, American first, etc...but wants help from the Ukraine to win an election?
Trump is a traitorous bottom feeding POS that could not care less about the USA, he is in this for himself. But Biden is the bad guy? You have got to be fucking kidding me.
Oh yea, Hunter worked for a private company and was paid handsomely for it. If making money in a foreign country is illegal, all of trump's kids belong in prison.
Saw a picture of her about a year ago, yea, she still looks damn good.
Your unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo are proof of nothing.
Unsubstantiated? Two allegations were listed. Both have been publicly substantiated for some time.
FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor
HUNTER BIDEN ADMITS: ONLY GOT THESE POSITIONS BECAUSE MY DAD WAS VP
Two allegations. Substantiated. And now prepare for the spin, deflect, and deny in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
***
On a related note, just thought I'd acknowledge this creepy line from Hunter. Even better, there's a woman interviewing him:
Open my kimono? Eewww.
Biden wasn't talking about 1 Billion in 'tax payers money'.
Biden was in Ukraine to solidify the US offer by the State Dept. of 1 Billion in LOAN GUARANTEES, which don't cost the US taxpayer a fucking dime unless and until Ukraine would default on those loans [which they did NOT]. We do the same for many countries we support, including Israel.
The statement about Hunter Biden was undeniably innuendo.
Next.
Actually, you deliberately misinterpreted Hunter Biden. What Biden said (paraphrased), 'I am sure I have gotten a lot of things because my last name is Biden.' The implication being that it is a given that one name, ;power, influence, and association, carries 'heft' and opens all kinds of doors in this world.
It's like asking a poor person, would they rather digs for roots and turnips as a living or get born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Which is better?
And here we are:
What do you think supports a loan guarantee? The Tooth Fairy? Good intentions?
Ahh! So we are talking about tax payer money. Thank you very much.
Undeniably even? It's clear you don't know what that means.
No, he actually said what Goose said he said. I'm not surprised you will deny the truth over and over and over and over and over again. Exactly as I predicted.
Gee Tacos!, over my years here earth, I had a co-signer on my first apartment lease [under 18] and co-signed many a loan [loan guarantee] for family and friends. Neither scenario cost one dime to either party.
In FACT, the whole concept of loan guarantees is that the co-signer is vouching for the other party and that they will NOT have to step in and cover the loan. It's not like the US put 1 billion aside for Ukraine, just in case. So just stop.
Innuendo. It's clear that you are desperate to try to deny that goose's comment did in fact make an allusion to something nefarious about Hunter Biden without citing an iota of evidence.
I'm not surprised that you continue to make obtuse arguments.
Not really. You make it sound like it's some kind of character review. Like someone is saying you're a good person. That's not what's happening. A loan guarantee means someone else is risking their money. When our government makes a loan guarantee, they aren't saying "Ukraine is good people." They are saying that the American taxpayers are committing their money.
Ultimately, it will be the American taxpayer who will be financially responsible. Ukraine can save us from that by making its payments, but if they fail - and they very well could - it's the American taxpayer on the hook. We have no control over whether or not Ukraine will make it's payments. That's up to them.
The fact that loan guarantees often work out just fine does not mean that Biden wasn't making promises with our money.
Do you know what "iota" means? Do you know what "evidence" means? Do you remember when you were supplied with evidence supporting his comments? Because - as expected, and as per frickin' usual - you have ignored that evidence. It's amazing the pain of cognitive dissonance doesn't cause aneurysms in you.
Why are you trying to pretend that Biden was acting unilaterally? How effective do you think that US loan guarantees would be if the IMF and the World Bank continued to refuse Ukraine loans to begin with? At the time, the EU was unwilling, for the most part, to invest in Ukraine because of the stalled Anti-corruption reforms. All of that is HISTORICAL FACT that can't be divorced from Biden's actions as VP at the time. Actions he took BTFW, for the benefit of BOTH Ukraine and the US.
Which are evidence of NOTHING.
I ignored the evidence of NOTHING.
You obviously lack the understanding of the concept of cognitive dissonance. Go read this:
Hope it helps.
, he asked, changing the subject and hoping no one would notice.
It's the Clinton defense. Sure he did something wrong (in Clinton's case, illegal) and it's not good, but it's not worthy of impeachment and removal. Once the Democrats lowered the standards for Presidential conduct to make Presidential perjury acceptable it's human nature that the lower standard becomes the new normal. Republicans aren't going to hold Trump to a higher standard than Democrats did Clinton. Wrong, but not impeachable/removable will work for Republicans just like it did for Democrats.
Get lost in the weeds all you want, but this is how its going to play out.
When was Hillary President again? Oh, that's right, she's never been President and she certainly paid a price for the "wrong" things conservatives think she did with her server. So how is not impeaching a President who does wrong things in any way similar? How is anyone trying to hold Trump to a higher standard? He has no standards, and his fellow Republicans certainly aren't trying to hold him to even the standard most would hold for their 5 year old children. I guess some have so little moral fortitude that they allow their opponents to determine their own personal moral standards, "if Clinton committed a crime and got away with it, then by God our guy is going to do ten times as many crimes! Mwahahahaha!".
Uh, never. Which is why he probably used the word "HE".
Bill Clinton was impeached. What he said was comparing it to "wrong, but not impeachable/removable" "just like it did for Democrats". So if we are comparing to Bill Clinton then impeachment is fitting, just like Republicans impeached him over lying about a blow job.
Which is probably why he added that word "and" between impeachable and removable.
And:
If impeachment involved a dem, the repubs would be all in favor for it.
A blow job by a POTUS was wrong, but Trump can butt f the entire country and his R lackeys are fine with it.
What I struggle with and find so difficult is how so many have put their party before the country. It's difficult to justify these ridiculous excuses that only weaken the country. More and more patriots are refusing to work for the country while those who already have taken oaths are leaving service in key Agencies and Departments because the GOP and Trump's base have allowed them to be attacked and lives ruined all for the sake of protecting Donald Trump. I am just so damn sad over this whole situation. I never imagined so many would not care about right and wrong.
While I agree that sometimes that happens, the Ukraine event is not an example of that. The country is just fine as a result of that incident. Or it would be, if the Democratic Party weren't scandalizing the event. Except for the awkwardness of impeachment drama, our relationship with Ukraine is just fine.
And as you ponder that, consider also this: It's putting party before country to seek the impeachment of a president who hasn't even taken office yet. It's also putting party before country to talk about impeachment with every act the president takes or word he speaks.
While some states will impeach a civil servant for being bad at his job or being a jerk, the founders considered and rejected that idea for the president. The standard remains high crimes and misdemeanors. That hasn't happened. So, there's plenty of "party before country" to go around.
So you disagree with Mr. Morrison, Trump's NSC aid. Why?
When did that happen? Link?
Didn't happen is not happening now.
Abuse of power is a high crime. PERIOD, full stop.
Believe what you like. The only Morrison I think about is Jim Morrison. I'm not agreeing with anybody. My opinion is my own. I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks when reaching my own conclusion. I suggest you try it some time.
Donald Trump was sworn in on 1/20/17 at 12 noon, Eastern Standard Time. Everything below was published before that or within the day. In some cases, it was months before. (and this list is the tip of a very large iceberg)
PETITION: IMPEACH DONALD J. TRUMP - site up since 11/9/2016
IMPEACH TRUMP NOW - site up since 1/20/2017
Left Action: Impeach Donald Trump - site up since 1/5/2017
Senate Dems seek divestment blind trust for Trump's assets - 12/15/2016
DEMOCRATS ARE PAVING THE WAY TO IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP - 12/15/2016
Dems stage mock corruption hearing on Trump’s business ties - 12/14/2016
Remove President Donald Trump (Impeachment) - 12/20/2016
The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun - 1/20/2017
What would actually happen if Donald Trump was impeached? - 11/10/2016
How to Impeach a U.S. President (Say, Donald Trump), Explained - 1/20/2017
#impeachdonaldtrump hashtag on Twitter - since 4/13/2016
Can Donald Trump Be Impeached? The Answer Depends Upon His Popularity Among The Public And Lawmakers - 11/8/2016
How Donald Trump Could Be Impeached - 11/9/2016
University of Utah finds legal case to impeach Donald Trump - 9/22/2016
Can A President (Trump) Be Prosecuted Based Upon Allegations Of Past Misconduct? - 11/9/2016
Not to mention all the attempts to get electors to ignore their states' votes and deny Trump the election, or all the talk of using the 25th Amendment, something that also started before he was sworn in.
Your personal dislike of his constitutional use of power does not make it abuse. The president has broad discretion in matters of international diplomacy. You would have to get pretty extreme to have a clear case of abuse of power.
Basically, he can negotiate just about anything he likes. It would become a problem if he somehow usurped the powers or rights of the Senate, states, or citizens, or if he was engaging in some kind of treason or bribery. Nothing like that has happened.
It would behoove you to recognize that 'seeking the impeachment' of Trump and 'asserting that Trump 'has engaged in impeachable conduct' are TWO different things.
FAIL
They have to twist, bend, turn around, double over, do the Exorcist head twist to defend Crooked donnie
Not different in any way that matters to our discussion. The whole point of the latter is the former (otherwise there is no reason for it) and the former is impossible without the latter.
If this is really how you plan to squirm out of asking for a link, that's pretty pathetic.
Abuse of power is not necessarily a crime, therefore no code is applicable.
What do you base your conclusion on that 'our relationship with Ukraine is just fine"?
No thanks. I prefer basing my conclusion on facts garnered from research.
What a sad load of crap. Seriously, I can't believe you wasted your time posting all of those ridiculous links. Petitions, bills on divestment, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
Yet Trump managed to get that extreme and he had conspirators acting on his behalf.
Again, abuse of power is a high crime. Saying 'nu uh' doesn't negate that fact.
Bullshit Tacos!. Have you forgotten that you predicated your statement with a comment with:
So when your next statement is about putting party before country, it's not a fucking stretch to expect that you would provide links to the Democratic Party 'seeking' Trump's Impeachment before he took office.
NONE of your links even infer that. It was an utter waste of you time to post and mine to review. Stop boring me.
Yet you have no point.
Yes, I know that you and your fellow travelers are averse to being called out to support the BS you post. Judging from your failed response, it's easy to see why.
That was quite the confession.
As much as secular progressives hate it and call it a negative variation of nationalism they would call it as you suggest.
The sooner you and your fellow travelers LEARN what the founders meant by 'high crimes and misdemeanors', the less silly y'all will look.
Those of us that speak the English language more fluently, acknowledge that 'seek' and 'talk' are two different verbs.
I don't address strawmen FW.
Yeah they do. In fact, three of them detail how actual Democratic members of Congress were engaged in setting up Trump for impeachment in December 2016. Some were actually engaging in mock impeachment hearings and others were crafting Trump-specific legislation specifically and explicitly intended to create grounds for impeachment. It's a shame you aren't open-minded or honest enough to admit that.
That's all you got out of that. I was using big words. I apologize.
I'd like to see your link to that.
Do you think that pretending to speak for other than yourself makes you cool?
I thought that my comment to FW about strawmen was clear. What's your problem?
Really? What lead you to the ridiculous conclusion that I post comments that I don't 'like reading' XD?
Oh and where did I say a fucking thing about patriotism XD? Post a link to my comment.
You're the one trying to contort and twist the English language to make the claim that 'seek' and 'talk' mean the same thing.
I don't think your failed attempt was vain, I think it's ridiculous.
Actually, I'm not gaslighted so I don't believe every fucking bullshit article making unsubstantiated claims.
Swill the pabulum if you wish.
Did you miss it when I addressed your lack of punctuation?
No, that's all you chose to address. Why?
Where is your answer to the question I asked you:
Answer?
Oh and BTFW, shove the supercilious bullshit.
FW may not be swilling just pablum...
No, abuse of power is abuse of power...
Is your posit that you do not know that the founders WROTE shit?
There's these documents called the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of the Confederation and Perpetual Union.
Hell, there's even this thingy called the Constitution, perhaps you've heard of it. There are also 10 Amendments to that Constitution, 85 Federalist papers supporting it and too many collections of the founders correspondence to cite.
There are also the minutes of the Continental Congress', the Constitutional Convention and the 1st Congress which debated the Bill of Rights.
But ya XD, instead of studying any of those sources, I held a séance. /s
Now, I have cited DOZENS of sources, ALL available online, for you to pursue the knowledge that you pretend to desire. I'll even suggest a starting point for you. Go READ Federalist 65 and LEARN what Hamilton said about Impeachment.
When I was 8 years old, my mother got tired of my asking for information so she got me a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica and told me to look it up for myself. I have taken that practice into adulthood and I research subjects on the internet so I can converse cogently on issues. You could give that a try rather demanding that others lead you to knowledge by the hand and making snarky comments.
Amazing. You asked for a link and got 15 of them. You have not addressed the content of a single one and you dismiss them all as we see above. What's more, you continue to make statements that are clearly contradicted in those links. If you want to talk about bullshit, look no farther than the nearest mirror.
Now that's the "T." (Smile.)
Nice dodge, and it fits what is happening in the impeachment hearings, how? How? No red-herrings dropping on the trail.
Just RIGHT HERE- RIGHT NOW tell me HOW. Thank you. (Smile.)
Again, NONE of which say that the Democratic Party was seeking Trump's Impeachment before he took office.
Dismissing them IS addressing the content of every single one of them.
They may contradict my comment, they do NOT refute them with facts.
There you go again Tacos!. You can't make an argument so you devolve to personal comments. I must say, you've managed to last longer than usual but I had no doubt you'd jump into the gutter.
This unwillingness to face the truth right in front of you is truly impressive. Both items below were reported in December of 2016 - more than a month before Trump took office.
Democratic legislators literally wrote a new law, expecting Trump would break it, so they could impeach him.
Meanwhile, other Democratic lawmakers were trying to figure out how they could apply an old provision of law to Trump's activities so they could impeach him.
Oh so your great 'truth' is that the Democrats PROPOSED a bill that SYMBOLICALLY sought to label any 'violation of federal conflict-of-interest rules "a high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution'.
Wow, that nails it I guess. /s
On June 7, 2017 , Congressman Al Green announced that Congressman Brad Sherman would join with him in drafting articles of impeachment against President Trump.
On June 12, 2017 , Sherman began circulating an article of impeachment among his colleagues.[6] Sherman said: "I'm not going to be deterred." Green stated: "In the spirit of keeping the republic, I have concluded that the president has obstructed justice and in so doing, the remedy for obstruction of justice is impeachment.
You need to get out more !
So what, 'talking point central'?
So what.....What ?
What do you mean that Trump hasn't taken office yet? Then who is that orange lump with bad hair who claims he IS the President?
Hi Paula! It is Me is trading in non-negotiables . What anybody might say about impeachment in their private time or even in their professional field has no bearing on the impeachment inquiry/hearings going on now. Certain democrats (Green, Waters, Steyer) wanted that "orange lump" brought up on charges for being since his early campaign days and inauguration - mainly, due to his continuous and repeating of lies and barely legal histronics around emoluments, nepotism, racists remarks, and other you know the deal.
Since he can't defend "The Jerk" in the hear and now; good old "It is Me" along with donalders go back into the past to look for something to bring forward. It is a red-herring and he would love to entangle somebody in its net for days on end if he can.
Oh ok. The statement just didn't make sense. It might have to me if he had been as clear as you have been.
It is demoralizing a new generation who will disavow interest in politics. We are faced with countrymen who want to tear down the existing order and return to an era of horrendous double-speak and "forked-tongueness." President Donald Trump being the ringleader.
I've been saying that from Day 1. This is not to say that the president didn't take advantage of his unique position, nor that his actions were politically motivated. I see a "gray area" type issue where no clear resolution exists.
Any candidate - incumbent or not - will seek information about his opponent's history in office or in other offices. So there really isn't anything unusual about the current president seeking information about the former Vice President and his actions on the job. If that information can only be had by talking to the leader of another country, he is in a unique position to pursue it. That's life. It's good to be the incumbent.
If an actual crime had been committed, and the president were trying to cover it up - like with Watergate - that would be a problem. But that didn't happen here. If the president were trying to manufacture false information and present it as true, that could also be a problem, although politicians misrepresent their opponents pretty much as a matter of course.
It's a shame that Republican politicians (not that this applies only to Republicans) can't think for themselves. Instead they get caught up in the tide of political and media hysteria. Thus, they react defensively over something ordinary. They make excuses for something that doesn't require an excuse.
As they fish around desperately for an excuse that will stick, their credibility is damaged, but they forget that their political opponents (including the media) aren't interested in showing any respect to any position they take or any defense they make. This happens when you don't have your own sense of what's right and you just let media trends tell you what's right.
Trump taking advantage of his unique position is the definition of abuse of power.
An Impeachment inquiry will point to a clear resolution.
Wow that is an utterly obtuse comment. It looks like you will excuse any and every action by Trump.
For Trump sycophants, I doubt it.
You've already admitted there was an abuse of power, not a 'crime' but eminently impeachable.
Like Ukraine interfered with the US's 2016 election, NOT Russia? Like Biden bragged about forcing the firing of Ukraine's GP to stop the prosecution of his son? Like THAT manufactured false information?
Seriously, you and your fellow travelers could not care less that Trump fabricates allegations against his opponents and present them as true. In fact, you encourage it and cheer it.
Wow that is an utterly obtuse comment. The rest is the usual lies, attacks, and generalizations. Unsurprising.
The only tactic I use is posting facts.
I can't decipher that blather.
BTFW, could you use some punctuation once in a while?
Yet instead of refuting anything that I have posted, you post emojis.
Well done.
You know nothing about me.
Who is this 'we' that you pretend to speak for FW? Do you think that pretending that you speak for other than yourself makes you cool?
BTFW, I guess my request for punctuation will go unanswered.
How "manufactured" and false is Guilani's running around in Ukraine attempting to get another nation's leader to LIE in a public declaration that his nation is investigating (a 'shell' investigation) a Biden? And during campaign season?
What do you reckon the president of our country, Donald Trump could have gained from such a put up job by another country, Tacos!?
NOTE: It is too bad that we can not get a deposition under oath from Ukrainian President Zelinksky about what he was PRESSURED TO LIE ABOUT and to the people of two countries no doubt. Trump did not give a damn that he was twisting this new leader and new politician into a 'pretzel.' Another clear example of Trump rabidly attempting to ruin another career and reputation solely for his purposes and aggrandizement!
And you DARE to imply that doing this is okay in our name?!!!!!
Your 'I'm rubber you're glue' argument is noted.
Really Tacos!? I said:
Those aren't lies, attacks or generalizations. They are simple FACTS.
On a personal note, you really need to try to refrain from incesently replying to my comments merely to make personal comments. I let you get away with it for the most part because I prefer that other members see just how low you go in your interactions. It's not a good look Tacos! and you could do MUCH better.
I don't know whether to , , or . Oh wait! They're all the same. Is it rude to at ? Probably, but it's impossible to resist.
Sadly, that my be the most cogent comment you've made to me in a long time and all it does is prove my last point.
But by all means, prove that those statements are lies, or attacks, or generalizations.
You can support your claim that they are right?
You pick a few statements out of the whole comment, but not all of them, and those are the ones you choose to put at issue, ignoring the others. Interesting.
Well, it is a comment board and not a large classroom. Oh, look "Teach" never shows up!!! You would not tell the truth about Donald Trump even though the man is the epitome of a loser president. For all the disrespect Republicans showered down on President Obama, they could never bring themselves to state he was a compulsively rabid liar so inept enough to get himself drawn up on impeachment charges—not even within the accumulation of eight years.
Donald Trump may be going insane by now. I don't wish it for him. Still it could not happen to a nicer jerk. Then, we can get him the care he needs or simply let his children take him home, so Trump's twitter-verse can fold in on itself. There will be withdrawal symptoms from this for the twitter-verse—or maybe not!
Yet you don't address even those. Interesting.
Nor did you cogently address anything else from my 'whole comment', so your 'point', whatever the fuck you're pretending that is, is moot.
Oh and BTFW, you seem to be having an issue with the concept of a strawman. I didn't post one.
OMG, can you even fathom the extent of the tantrum he will throw if not reelected? The energy of it alone could supply NY alone.
"Hell has no fury" like a Trump casted out of the limelight. Right. Well, thank god he will be on the sidelines. Although, there will have to be precautions put in place to stop him from giving away state secrets as "indulgences" when he is not lucid.
Have you observed that chiefest among Trump's personal issues is the man apparently does not have commonsense.
True. Yet, it could not compare with the amount of energy produced by the world in general in praise of his losing the election.
The greatest thing our planet as a whole could see if Trump being kicked out of the WH by the majority of the American people. Even many of those who voted for him the first time have seen his true colors and/or have been screwed by Trump, and they will not vote for him again. Even if it means voting for a Dem.
He may become the first paid martyr in history.
The rest is the usual lies, attacks, and generalizations.
It's okay, we forgive you.
Complete nonsense. The right has become almost entirely a position of bamboozling, disinformation, and muddying up the water. There is nothing 'ordinary' about a president of the United States demanding that a foreign government investigate the president's political rival.
The constant bamboozling is why we must consider ourselves at a form of war. We cannot come to compromise with most Trump supporters.
Complete nonsense.
That could be because that political rival is not ordinary. He's a former Vice President who abused his position and power as VP and now he wants even more power as president. If this seems like an impossible situation, just imagine if Dick Cheney were running for president and a Democrat like Obama were running for reelection. I very much doubt you'd insist that Cheney's activities as VP not be investigated.
Are you offering a compromise?
If Biden was guilty of something, or even REASONABLY suspected, the U.S. Senate would be investigating him right now. And the DOJ too.
Your idea that someone must be investigated, because a fricking conspiracy nut and serial liar like Trump decides he has the power to order it , is bizarre.
There is no compromise with people who spread Trump's conspiracy theories and lies.
they don't get it. and probably never will. those that do get it are dug in so deep they can't get out now even if they tried.
dems should hold secret hearings in a basement and then hold more hearings that only allow them to question witnesses without names - that will work... LOL
WOW! Who knew that our John's comments were so powerful?
Hail the all powerful JR!
Except that our, the USA's, Intelligence services could not exactly just ignore it when dozens of shady Trump campaign apparatchiks made hundreds of highly questionable definitely unethical and probably illegal contacts with well known agents of Russian State Intelligence Services and then lied our their fat asses about it. Could they? There is zero none no zip evidence that Obama "ordered" shit on this regard or that he even needed to. If you have any proof he did so then you should provide it or else quit spreading such lameass lies, blatant misinformation and rank Russian propaganda...
Anybody can do what Donald "do what I say not what I do" Trump has done. My friend, what you will come face to face with sooner than later is how the heaven you can support a real character who would turn on you the way fast, if not faster, than he turns on a military vet: Without even a second thought.
How anyone can assent that John McCain was anything but a superb and 'model' soldier under the conditions of war-time is beyond me. Donald Trump did that! And, he continues to do 'it' today.
The question is, are laws of the U.S. meant to be obeyed by the 'little people' of this country (such as you and me) or by everybody. Is Donald Trump above reproach in your eyes. What can Donald Trump do that would be a clear 'breaking of trust' with you? And, do suspend all nonsense if/when you reply. This is an attempt at advancing this discussion.
You can't make blanket statements and assume they apply for all people in all situations just because it gets you to a point where impeachment is justified.
Not all laws apply to everybody. The president has responsibility and authority that you and I do not. If I kill some guy in Syria or Iraq, it's murder. If the president orders it, it's part of the very legal and justified war on terror. Where it might not be ok for you or I to discuss a topic with a foreign official, it's part of the job for the president.
Beyond that, your other questions are too open-ended and vague. I could just as easily and pointlessly reverse it and ask things like: Is there anything Trump could do that would make you support him or not wish to impeach him? Is there any scenario in which you could trust him? We'd be engaging in open-ended fantasy. That way leads to straw men arguments. Better to just deal with the actual facts in front of us.
Q. Is there a law, any law, against candidates in U.S. campaigns receiving aid (anything of value) from foreign countries?
This question is anything but vague. If you do not answer the question, it implies you being disingenuous.
Just reading you two 'going on' is popcorn worthy. All that is missing is a Kellyanne Conway 'rep' (alternative reality world) and we would have a full-house! Oh, let's invite Mr. Conway too!
Riddle me this: Is this anything like, "White collar crime"? If Donald Trump did not want to be a president who learns what is what about the law, if Donald Trump did not want to abide behind the guardrails surrounding the field, if Donald Trump did not wish to lead with respect for the job, then Donald Trump should have stayed his tired old ass out of politics. The rules he violated are ESTABLISHED—not customized for Donald Trump to fall down on the job on.
You are making excuses, for a man who would step all over you (leaving footprints) to get what he wants. That is, you are being USED by someone who really, in my opinion, is not worthy of your time. But that 's just me and my opinion. (I don't really know you or what you are about.)
No ifs. The ASK was delivered once and repeatedly. The cover-up is the ASK 'hidden' on a government server designed for 'secure' documents well beyond its status. BUSTED!
Stop it. You are weakly attempting to defend the indefensible. Stop it America, don't grovel for Donald Trump; he wouldn't do it for you. Don't believe me - go look at those he has littered the grounds of the White House with. Their careers and reputations are in tattered. Trump's is too - he just does not know it yet.
A political offense has been committed by this president. There is not defense for this. It's hidden on a secure server; why? What motivates a president's 'men' to hide something that needs no security in the securest of locations?
Tacos! Facts are going to get you bogged down and evaporate any remaining credibility you have if you keep this passionate display up; Trump is unworthy. He turns on everybody. He is the nation's 'biggest User.'
At least Trump's people know what that is. If we were talking about President Clinton, it would be on her home PC.
Ask them. You want me to speculate on what is in the minds of people I don't know. This is what you do, but you only do it with a negative perspective. You would never consider an innocent possibility. That's not factual analysis. It's merely your own bias at work.
Let's not pretend you have any respect for my credibility. Such pretense damages your credibility.
I think you're a lot more passionate about this than I am. You see an emergency. I see no big deal. I think the shrinks call that projection.
I don't like him either, but as president, he is constitutionally as worthy as anyone of a serious and sober approach to talk of impeachment. What we have seen for the last three years in the premature calls for impeachment, attempts to manipulate the Electoral College, and 25th Amendment plotting cannot name claim to be serious or sober.
But, we are NOT talking about (President) Clinton are we? What we can ask is why Trump can't properly clean up what he calls the Washington swamp as long as he is in it. Yeah, Trump is proving to be quite a load dropped on Washington, D.C.!
It does not need the enhanced security feature. Stop dodging! What I do is listen to the data and respond accordingly. Actually, it is you who is showing something akin to adjustment and appeasing a madman President.
Donald Trump does not give a damn about you. He is manipulating anybody foolish enough to allow him their power. And he would manipulate everybody else were they enthralled by him. Fortunately for us, we are not!
It is all win with him - even when it is manifest error.
Please. Maybe you are right and I can't take you seriously. You support a man who has lied from the word, "go," and even before or at the official start of his running for the 2020 campaign cycle, it is clear Trump was dispatching people and official government agents left and right to execute numerous cloak and dagger acts.
CB spits.
No, I support the Constitution.
You support a Trump-styled constitution with its phony emoluments clause. And, if any part of your Trump constitution is false, then all of it is suspect:
President Trump - Phony Emoluments Clause
Today, on a 'cut' airing on Jay Sekulow Live I listened to Donald Trump 'rip' about his role in appointing one-hundred judges who will treat the constitution like it is written. I am willing to bet this mindnumbing jerk does not remember not a month ago he called the document, "Phony" because it called out something he decidely wants to do. T
Tacos! It is very clear to me - you can not support President Donald Trump and the Constitution. Doing so is making you appear double-minded.
Republicans are cogs in this A Donald Does Washington, D.C. PRODUCTION. Starring: Donald Trump as himself.
There's no such thing.
You clearly will believe what you want about other people and nothing anyone does or says will change that.
I see you avoided the "phony emoluments clause" statement like a plague. (Expected and fulfilled.)
This is too much BS. You want to pretend to have a discussion and push a stupid unrealistic set of agendas. The hell you say! Take that smoke elsewhere, because we're done with your loser president! Win or lose this upcoming election we're done with Trump and his donalders BS!
It quite disturbing to me that with all the good that can be done for the people in this country if we can ever get on one accord, what we consistently manage to do look for hot, musty, piles of stupid 'states of existence' in our political sphere to latch onto for dear life.
Voluntarily or involuntarily we have all become "profit" for those miscreants in the political realm who will exploit the hell out of us!
Does that really work on politicians ?
How do those folks go into congress, with "Not Much", and come out all "comfy and cozy" for retirement anyway.
Take that red herring elsewhere, please.
So "Things" only apply to "Certain Folks", but not ALL ?
Stop stalling, please.
I'm running fine. I was just tuned up.
emolument
noun
emol·u·ment | \ i-ˈmäl-yə-mənt
Definition of emolument
1 : the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites
Oh look ..….. Squirrel !
Not to be confused with Herring.
Get serious. Get on with it. Get away for vacation.
" Two out of three ain't bad" …..Meatloaf !
@ 6.3.153 . Get serious. Get on with it.
Incidentally, when you get back up there check your "Trump-math" will ya! I won't patronize you by doing it for you! Just count your months!
That's more than Trump does.
Many politicians complain about the Constitution when they bump into the cold reality that it was intended to limit their power.
Intent or no intent, illegal is illegal. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for this "stable genius".
Interesting. That's about what Jim Comey said about Hillary Clinton. Yet Democrats and the media seem to have no concern about her not being punished.
Anyway, I think you're misreading what I was trying to say about Trump. I'm not saying Trump broke a law and was ignorant of it, therefore it's all good. In fact, I'm not yet satisfied that he broke a law at all.
The president has wide discretion and broad authority in matters of international diplomacy, including the authority to delay (within reason) aid payments or to condition their delivery on specific behavior by the recipient. I wouldn't say it happens a lot, but almost every president in recent generations has done it at least once or twice - including Obama. The reasons vary, of course.
The fact that such a negotiation might also enhance his prospects for reelection is where the gray area is. Virtually anything the president decides to do - especially in his first term - will be done with an eye toward reelection. So, is it fair to say he should be removed if he does something that is motivated by that goal? It seems to me we could impeach every president if that were the standard.
But he can also truthfully say that he is investigating the official behavior of a former Vice President and possible corruption or abuse of power. Even if you think such an investigation is not warranted, that is what he is doing. That is something he has a legitimate duty to investigate and the American people have a right to know about. This is even more urgent because that former Vice President now wants to be president. If it turns out that Biden abused his position as VP, voters have a right to know that. Removing the president from office on those grounds seems unwarranted.
Especially, for an impolite, rude, crude, talking presidential ass! He has been given all the breaks he needs. He apologizes or self-corrects not one iota. Throw the book at that jerk!
Hey, if she did something against the law, I say bust her. But yall can't keep on using the butttt....Hilary as justification.
Who does? (unless they're a Democrat running (scared) for office in 2020)
I'm not. I just saw a double standard is all.
I'm actually not in favor of that. I have my problems with Hillary, but her server issue is not one of them. I think she made an honest mistake that didn't really impact anything and I think Congress investigating her 6 or 8 times was silly and pathetic political gamesmanship.
I say the same about Trump.
s
You're mistaken. The media and the Democrats had plenty to say on the airways about what James Comey said and did, followed up by a lack of inaction. In other words, if Director Comey was not going to file charges against Hillary Clinton for her 'mis-steps' (not misdemeanor or felony), then why did he insert himself into one of the most contentious political 'races' of 2016? This droned on for as many days as it mattered in late October - early November 24.
Now then, here are a few important differences which matter ICO Hillary Clinton and has not applied to Donald Trump:
The FBI policies, and law must be applied equally, that does not imply either of the two processes need be applied the same.
Well, it clear your 'walls' and 'force fields' are in good working order!
Let's cut through the BS. Donald Trump has been an evil ASS ever since he came down his escalator in his hotel. He has told more people to kiss his rump, the equivalent of "Eat me," and shined democrats on as he threw out legitimate career people just because they would not - could not dance to his 'tune,' and he has placed 'hard-case' maybe 'brutal' as time will reveal conservative justices in courts all over this country. All without taking account of liberal's needs, desires, or interests. All done just for starters with that f hit-eating, cartoonish
grin of his. No insult to Fred Flintstone intended!
Those who want friends should show themselves friendly. Those who want to be a snake; can expect people to respond with fear and loathing . If Donald Trump needs to get EVERYTHING he deserves from the House and Senate! Throw his lying, cheating, fake leadership styling, figurative carcass out in the bushes.
You seem as willing to accept that judgment as the media and Democrats are. That’s fine, but will you be as accepting when the Senate decides that Trump’s actions do not warrant his removal?
As I think I indicated, that’s not entirely his fault. He has, on several occasions, invited Democratic leaders to the White House to work with him. They have a history of either refusing his invitations or walking out of meetings.
I also remember Obama making a big show out of taking the keys away from Republicans and telling them they were going to ride in the back from then on. That’s not too friendly. Small wonder, then, that the opposition developed such a hostile attitude toward him.
I will have no choice but to accept it. Just so you know, I was not in favor of Bill Clinton not being found guilty of lying to Congress. I thought then and think now Bill Clinton was guilty - it is what it is however. I will disagree with the Senate planned and stated course of action, if it fails the merits of impeachment. However, as I stated to you above.
3. Donald Trump has not made errors in judgement. His activities for which he being sought out for a possible impeachment, he has never forsworn, never indicated a change of heart for executing those spoken of actions; and, has shown a willingness to block and tamper with witnesses and governmental supporting documents.
Degrees matter. Contexts matter. You would like to pretend you are not aware equality and equity, does not equal exactness in matters such as this. I won't let you do that. I will keep correcting 'the record' accordingly.
Apparently, we live in two separate quadrants of America. If President Trump thinks for any portion of a second that democratic members of congress are supposed to come into his white house and surrender to his policies, requests, and demands bar none - then, of course, he is a madman, not in touch with the real world.
In Trump's mind, he is NEVER culpable for ANYTHING.
He isn’t guilty of anything the Dems bring up to hide their guilt over what they did to America in the 2016 election and since then.
Yes, we know NOTHING is ever Crooked donnie's fault. He's a fucking saint, as pure as the driven snow
Save your proclamations for the pabulum swillers.
Compared to progressives he is indeed just that.
No he is not...he is scum and it's sad that people don't see it
And that makes Trump tragic. Why do we have an unfit president in popular demand by the Republican Party? Congressional republicans have gone mad.
It's depressing me that facts and reality don't seem to matter any more and conspiracy theories have taken root as truth.
It used to be that patriotism was one thing that would bring the country together but the seeds of hate have been sown and carefully cultivated by this Administration and it's disciples.
The country has moved into a dark age where racism is cheered, truth is no longer revered, and the law of the land doesn’t matter. We've started attacking those who have pledged an oath to the Constitution and therefor the country rather than pledging it to one man. We have allowed power to be taken from two branches of our government and transferred to the executive branch. These actions will set a terrible precedence for generations to come.
America will need to fail to survive and we're watching that play out in real time.
No, it is not...
REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTION HAS COME TO NT!
We have Republican Senator Graham who flat out states, he will not be 'reading the transcripts' after Trump admonished people to 'read the transcripts.' Now we have Republican "Gooseisgone," who won't be reading a federalist document on Impeachment because as is being stated, "no need" to.
Friend Dulay! All players are on the field. The game is afoot. Liberals and democrats simply have not been allowed to put points on the board, even when we score. Republicans have been in and continue to be in full-fledged denial of democratic 'wins.'
Republicans choose to disrespect the rule of law.
They choose to disrespect our players on the field.
And, will steal from us our right to have facts matter.
If a guy swipes trail mix from the bin at the supermarket, he might not think his intent was to be a thief, but he was.