Can you imagine a worse reason to start a civil war?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You seem to be under the impression that you've said something of substance here. Your opinion about what Trump thinks or knows or is remotely aware of has no substantial importance in this matter. All you've done here is evade the fact that what Trump requested was absolutely legitimate, and replaced that legitimacy with your sarcastic and uninformed opinion. And that is all you could do, in order to maintain some fictitious level of credibility for your previous ignorant comments and opinions.

You not only proclaim that Trump is totally clueless, but must think that the Secretary of State, Trump's lawyers, the State Dept., all Trump advisors, are also clueless. It is their business to know something as basic as to what is legal to do when asking for foreign assistance on ANY matter. These treaties are not some dusty old files hidden in some remote never looked at file. They are paid attention to on a continuing basis when any political or legal matter between countries must be addressed.

When the media sources that you, or the public in general, doesn't tell you what you don't know, you inherently assume there is nothing to know. However, those who expand the variety of media sources are more likely to be informed about things than those who are stuck on their one-sided sources which would rather you didn't know everything you need to know to fully understand an issue. This issue of treaties that allow what Trump asked is probably not discussed by the sources that you get your info from because they would rather that you didn't know and so keep you stuck on the notion that it is illegal or unconstitutional to ask foreign powers to "dig up dirt" on their opponents. That is the preferred level of discussion that gives some appearance of a reason for impeachment.

However, other more honest media have informed those of us who listen to them about the treaties and a great deal of other things that cast a whole different light on the issue.

So it is not that Trump is clueless. It is that you are. Not through any fault of your own, except that your sources are not helping you out.

Your claim that Trump "doesn’t listen to a single advisor who might know" is unsubstantiated nonsense. He has always surrounded himself with "experts" even in his business ventures. He sometimes disagrees with some of them, but he hears them all out. Other sources would have helped you to know some things about Trump that you don't, but your sources would rather that you believe he is all the various boogymen that they've planted in your head.

Your claim it’s a “fact” his request was legal and legit I believe is as wrong as you and the GOP spinning this as a nothing burger. The man has proven he has no issues past, present or future in enlisting foreign powers to interfere in our democracy and elections for personal gain. The “fact” is that is exactly why the founding fathers gave congress a means to remove a president who is abusing his power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Your claim it’s a “fact” his request was legal and legit I believe is as wrong as you and the GOP spinning this as a nothing burger. The man has proven he has no issues past, present or future in enlisting foreign powers to interfere in our democracy and elections for personal gain. The “fact” is that is exactly why the founding fathers gave congress a means to remove a president who is abusing his power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No one has to prove Trumps request was legal. The democrats have to prove it wasn't legal.

"The man has proven he has no issues past, present or future in enlisting foreign powers to interfere in our democracy and elections for personal gain"

I agree he's done that. My question is, when did that become unethical? Hilary wasn't using her office to get donations to her foundation? Obama didn't do that when he asked the Russians to postpone missile talks (talk about national security!) until after his re election? The Senate democrats didn't do that when they asked Ukraine to investigate Manafort and Trump?

Or can you just say out loud what we all know, that's it's only unethical when Trump does it?

I don't think what Trump did was "nothing". But I think it was nothing much more, than what they all do. Once again, we're going to hold him to a different standard, because he's the most vulgar person by far to ever hold that office.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

he's the most vulgar person by far to ever hold that office.

I don't know...I heard LBJ was pretty bad

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I don't know...I heard LBJ was pretty bad

True, but LBJ didn't have Twitter so it wasn't common knowledge.

The democrats liked his vulgarity when they assumed it would ensure a Hilary victory.

Suck it up and win the next election. Don't undermine the democracy just because they had no one at all, waiting to take over for Hilary as the viable candidate. God almighty what a freak show. I don't think Warren has a prayer. but I also didn't think Trump had a prayer, so what do I know...

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We're going to hold him to a different standard, because he's the most vulgar person by far to ever hold that office.

We can agree on that one, but Obama delaying talks due to it being more productive for both parties after an election, is a far cry from Trump asking for help getting elected; which by the way is illegal. If Hilary won and was pulling this same crap, I'd back the republicans going after her for betraying her oath of office as well. The president CAN NOT seek foreign help to interfer or benefit, what is it about that which is not crystal clear to the GOP. I suspect while they remain silent, with only a few stating this is troubling, behind closed doors they are very concerned.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

We The president CAN NOT seek foreign help to interfer or benefit, what is it about that which is not crystal clear to the GOP. I suspect while they remain silent, with only a few stating this is troubling, behind closed doors they are very concerned.

(1) show me where it says that a POTUS can't ask a foreign power for any favor or assistance which might benefit him politically.

(2) is the senate allowed to do that? Because 3 senate democrats asked Ukraine to investigate Manafort and Trump. Why was that OK?

What if Trump honestly, genuinely feels Biden did something seriously wrong in Ukraine? He can't ask them to investigate, because Biden is a political adversary? So anyone who is running against a sitting POTUS, has blanket immunity in other countries to do whatever they want?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Obama delaying talks due to it being more productive for both parties after an election, is a far cry from Trump asking for help getting elected; .

If you listen to what Obama said, it's reasonable to infer that he was worried that what he and the Russians had in mind, might have hurt his chances of getting re elected, so he asked them to wait until after his last election. Because once he was no longer answerable to us, he's have "more flexibility" to go along with what the Russians wanted to do.

It's not exactly the same as what Trump did. But it's not a stretch, to say that Obama asked a foreign power to delay missile talks because it would help him get elected.

You really think they don't all do this? As Detbuch said, if Trump gets a great trade deal with China, that will help him get re elected. So is he not allowed to pursue that?

I don't think that investigating Biden, when there's that much evidence of corruption, is "interfering" with the election. Knowing more facts about what took place, improves our ability to make an informed vote, it doesn't interfere with it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't think that investigating Biden, when there's that much evidence of corruption, is "interfering" with the election. Knowing more facts about what took place, improves our ability to make an informed vote, it doesn't interfere with it.

Show us the evidence Jim.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Show us the evidence Jim.

hunter got filthy rich at a job he had zero qualifications for, except that his daddy was (1) the VP, (2) the US point person for the same country that employed Hunter ( what a coincidence), and (3) daddy helped fire a prosecutor that might have been looking at this company, (4) it’s reported that john
kerry’s stepson ended his investment partnership with hunter, because he wasn’t comfortable with what hunter was doing in ukraine.

ever heard of circumstantial evidence? sure you have, but only when it applies to republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

hunter got filthy rich at a job he had zero qualifications for, except that his daddy was (1) the VP, (2) the US point person for the same country that employed Hunter ( what a coincidence), and (3) daddy helped fire a prosecutor that might have been looking at this company, (4) it’s reported that john
kerry’s stepson ended his investment partnership with hunter, because he wasn’t comfortable with what hunter was doing in ukraine.

ever heard of circumstantial evidence? sure you have, but only when it applies to republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's more like a conspiracy theory. I've still never seen a shred of anything that shows Hunter Biden did anything wrong other than poor judgement to take a job that could be seen as a conflict of interest.

And the Biden leverage to fire the prosecutor was bi-partisan and supported by most of Europe. Burisma wasn't even under investigation at the time.

There's no there there.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

The “fact” is that is exactly why the founding fathers gave congress a means to remove a president who is abusing his power.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yeah, I don't think they could have possibly anticipated the lunatics currently on the democrat side of congress wielding such means