Schiff lost his marbles

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

Personal gain through a power only granted to him by the office he holds.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the tenth time, if the biden’s were actually engaged in corruption, Trump can’t ask for
an investigation, because it would benefit him? So the Biden’s can rob a bank, and Trump can’t ask for
an investigation because that might help him?

As to personally benefitting from the office? The Clintons are worth hundreds of millions, and the Obamas just bought a $15 million vacation home. All thanks to the office they held. But it’s only an issue when a republican benefits from his office. Gimme a break.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

For the tenth time, if the biden’s were actually engaged in corruption, Trump can’t ask for
an investigation, because it would benefit him? So the Biden’s can rob a bank, and Trump can’t ask for
an investigation because that might help him?

Lets make it even more simple. Say Trump believes there’s evidence of corruption by any American in a foreign country. Does he enlist help from:

A) The FBI

or

B) Lev Parnas

Have fun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Lets make it even more simple. Say Trump believes there’s evidence of corruption by any American in a foreign country. Does he enlist help from:

A) The FBI

or

B) Lev Parnas

Have fun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he enlists help from that country. boy that was hard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

he enlists help from that country. boy that was hard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The proper channel is the justice department not another country
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The proper channel is the justice department not another country
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The DOJ is investigating it. And it is also "proper" to ask the foreign government to assist in the investigation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The proper channel is the justice department not another country
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So where was the outrage when Senate democrats asked Ukraine to investigate Trump and Manafort? That letter has been widely circulated in public, and not once did I hear anyone on the left criticize the senate democrats for asking another country for help, that they should have gone to the Justice Dept.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So where was the outrage when Senate democrats asked Ukraine to investigate Trump and Manafort? That letter has been widely circulated in public, and not once did I hear anyone on the left criticize the senate democrats for asking another country for help, that they should have gone to the Justice Dept.

Did you read the letter?

Who did Mueller work for?

Here is the opening sentence: "We are writing to express great concern about reports that your office has taken steps to impede cooperation with the investigation of United States Special counsel Robert Mueller."

That is the difference between an aboveboard investigation and Floridaman's backchannel baloney.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Did you read the letter?

Who did Mueller work for?

Here is the opening sentence: "We are writing to express great concern about reports that your office has taken steps to impede cooperation with the investigation of United States Special counsel Robert Mueller."

That is the difference between an aboveboard investigation and Floridaman's backchannel baloney.

the difference, is whether or not you support the politician asking a foreign country for help.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Lets make it even more simple. Say Trump believes there’s evidence of corruption by any American in a foreign country. Does he enlist help from:

A) The FBI

or

B) Lev Parnas

Have fun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You conveniently forgot to include the foreign country with whom we have a treaty on mutual assistance in criminal investigations.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Lets make it even more simple. Say Trump believes there’s evidence of corruption by any American in a foreign country. Does he enlist help from:

A) The FBI

or

B) Lev Parnas

Have fun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is fun, get this spence...

you’re saying it’s fishy that Trump asked Ukraine for help, instead of going to the FBI.

Yet you recently defended senate democrats for writing a letter to Ukraine, asking them to investigate Trump and Manafort. It was ok when democrats asked ukraine for an investigation instead of the fbi, but sinister when trump does it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

For the tenth time, if the biden’s were actually engaged in corruption, Trump can’t ask for
an investigation, because it would benefit him? So the Biden’s can rob a bank, and Trump can’t ask for
an investigation because that might help him?

As to personally benefitting from the office? The Clintons are worth hundreds of millions, and the Obamas just bought a $15 million vacation home. All thanks to the office they held. But it’s only an issue when a republican benefits from his office. Gimme a break.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hmm, let me think how to respond about whether the Clintons and Obama benefited from being President after they left office versus how Trump is benefiting personally while in office??? Can anyone help me?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Hmm, let me think how to respond about whether the Clintons and Obama benefited from being President after they left office versus how Trump is benefiting personally while in office??? Can anyone help me?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok. the personal benefit to trump, is that it helps him get re elected, right, You’re saying all politicians don’t do things because they hope it will help them get re elected? so a president in his first term, isn’t supposed to do anything, that will make people want to vote for him again? Do you hear how stupid that sounds?

Obama bragged during his 2012 re election that GM was alive and Bin Laden was dead. Obama
was using the actions he took while in office, to help benefit himself. Where were the calls for impeachment?

You’re saying it’s an impeachable offense for a potus to do anything that might help him get re elected. Wow. I mean, wow.

There’s also every reason to believe that Biden used his office, while he was in office, to benefit his son. You really have to have your head in the sand to deny that between the cushy job in the Ukraine and all the foreign money that flowed to his investment bank when daddy was vp, that daddy had nothing to do with it.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ok. the personal benefit to trump, is that it helps him get re elected, right, You’re saying all politicians don’t do things because they hope it will help them get re elected? so a president in his first term, isn’t supposed to do anything, that will make people want to vote for him again? Do you hear how stupid that sounds?

Obama bragged during his 2012 re election that GM was alive and Bin Laden was dead. Obama
was using the actions he took while in office, to help benefit himself. Where were the calls for impeachment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump's actions benefit him personally and only him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Trump's actions benefit him personally and only him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wrong. Finding out the truth about what was going on in the Ukraine, benefits all
if us.

You literally just said, that getting to the truth about whether or not the Biden’s were corrupt in Ukraine, benefits no one except for Trump. There’s no benefit, none whatsoever, to learning the truth?

Have fun with that nonsense, Paul. When clinging to your agenda requires you to say that learning the truth about what a leading presidential candidate has done has zero benefit, isnt it time to maybe get a different agenda?

Just sayin’.

You don’t want to know what the Biden’s we’re doing there. That doesn’t mean there’s no benefit. Not even close. Biden is by far, by far, the best chance against Trump, so we need to protect him, and avoid the truth, at all costs.

At lest you admitted it explicitly, if unknowingly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wrong. Finding out the truth about what was going on in the Ukraine, benefits all
if us.

You literally just said, that getting to the truth about whether or not the Biden’s were corrupt in Ukraine, benefits no one except for Trump. There’s no benefit, none whatsoever, to learning the truth?

Have fun with that nonsense, Paul. When clinging to your agenda requires you to say that learning the truth about what a leading presidential candidate has done has zero benefit, isnt it time to maybe get a different agenda?

Just sayin’.

You don’t want to know what the Biden’s we’re doing there. That doesn’t mean there’s no benefit. Not even close. Biden is by far, by far, the best chance against Trump, so we need to protect him, and avoid the truth, at all costs.

At lest you admitted it explicitly, if unknowingly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Floridaman was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, why ask a private attorney to go investigate it and why focus Zelensky only on topics that benefited Floridaman politically?
Isn’t it the job of U.S. law enforcement to investigate potential wrongdoing by Americans?
How could you say it is corrupt to seek to oust a corrupt prosecutor, a move the U.S. government and the Western alliance supported? At the time Viktor Shokin was fired, he was not actually investigating Burisma, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If Floridaman was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, why ask a private attorney to go investigate it and why focus Zelensky only on topics that benefited Floridaman politically?

Nothing wrong with asking a private agency, all topics can either benefit or hurt Trump, and he also asked the foreign government and the DOJ to investigate.

Isn’t it the job of U.S. law enforcement to investigate potential wrongdoing by Americans?

It is so doing.

How could you say it is corrupt to seek to oust a corrupt prosecutor, a move the U.S. government and the Western alliance supported?

The U.S. government and European governments are often corrupt, self-serving, and prone to do shady things.

At the time Viktor Shokin was fired, he was not actually investigating Burisma, right?

There is testimony that he was.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Trump's actions benefit him personally and only him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who benefitted when the fbi deceived the FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign, Paul? how is that different than finding out the truth about what the Bidens were up to?

answer- it’s ok to investigate politicians you don’t happen to like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

who benefitted when the fbi deceived the FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign, Paul? how is that different than finding out the truth about what the Bidens were up to?

answer- it’s ok to investigate politicians you don’t happen to like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The correct answer is you need a predicate to open an investigation in this country.
Plenty of predicates existed to cause an investigation of the Floridaman campaign.

What’s the predicate for opening an investigation into Biden or his son?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The correct answer is you need a predicate to open an investigation in this country.
Plenty of predicates existed to cause an investigation of the Floridaman campaign.

What’s the predicate for opening an investigation into Biden or his son?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The predicate for opening an investigation on Trump was based on false information which none of which was given to the public at the time. The public is not aware of all information which now exists on the Biden scandal.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ok. the personal benefit to trump, is that it helps him get re elected, right, You’re saying all politicians don’t do things because they hope it will help them get re elected? so a president in his first term, isn’t supposed to do anything, that will make people want to vote for him again? Do you hear how stupid that sounds?

Obama bragged during his 2012 re election that GM was alive and Bin Laden was dead. Obama
was using the actions he took while in office, to help benefit himself. Where were the calls for impeachment?

You’re saying it’s an impeachable offense for a potus to do anything that might help him get re elected. Wow. I mean, wow.

There’s also every reason to believe that Biden used his office, while he was in office, to benefit his son. You really have to have your head in the sand to deny that between the cushy job in the Ukraine and all the foreign money that flowed to his investment bank when daddy was vp, that daddy had nothing to do with it.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Floridaman is concerned about adult children benefiting from their father’s name, why did he allow his sons to run his company during his presidency and give his unqualified children a place in administration?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

For the tenth time, if the biden’s were actually engaged in corruption, Trump can’t ask for
an investigation, because it would benefit him? So the Biden’s can rob a bank, and Trump can’t ask for
an investigation because that might help him?

As to personally benefitting from the office? The Clintons are worth hundreds of millions, and the Obamas just bought a $15 million vacation home. All thanks to the office they held. But it’s only an issue when a republican benefits from his office. Gimme a break.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He has a justice department for that, and congress (which he held control of both houses for a stretch.) If this was about corruption, this was literally the worst way a president could go about getting it investigated. Bottom line is that it was illegal. You can’t argue that.

He got caught. Said there was no quid pro quo. Sondland SAT IN FRONT OF CONGRESS and said there was actually quid pro quo. They charged him with it. GAO confirmed it was illegal. Now we’re in the senate to decide what’s next.

Hey he most frustrating thing here is that he can be guilty of breaking the law and not removed from office. I wish people who don’t want him gone would just admit he broke the law. This drawn out argument backed by lies that he did nothing wrong is just hurting the institution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device