riflebear said:

---

corncob pipe said:

---

Booray said:

---

POTUS asked an ally dependent on U.S. military protection and foreign aid to investigate a political rival. That is wrong. Period, end of story.

I don't care if it is illegal or impeachable. It is wrong and no way to run a country. Minimize it all you want, but in doing so you are further degrading the country we all love.

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

---

Couple this outrage with the hurricane "sharpie" incident and I believe you've got him....

---

Don't forget Trump gets 2 scoops of ice cream and everyone else only gets 1. Dam Traitor....

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

A series of response all ignoring this from my post:

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

POTUS should not come anywhere close to making it appear that aid is dependent on investigating one of his political rivals (or protecting one of his political allies). If that happened in Ukraine before 2016 it is just as wrong. Its pretty simple: aid and military support decisions-particularly those around Russia--have to be made solely based on what is best for the United States strategic interests. POTUS actions certainly make it appear that he was basing his decisions on what was best for him politically.

---

Please show evidence that he threatened to deny aid...

---

On Monday, The Washington Post first reported that the President had directed his acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to freeze nearly $400 million of US military and security aid to Ukraine in the days before he spoke with Zelensky.

He kept aid from Ukraine until a bi-partisan congress practically forced him to hand it over. Just because he was smart enough to not explicitly tie the two together doesn't mean the rest of the world cannot connect the dots.

---

This seems like a thin reed on which to hang impeachment of a president. He said he wanted Europe to pay more & that sounds reasonable.

And there is this. Please tell me what Joe did here:

Joe Biden:

"I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a b----. He got fired."

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

A series of response all ignoring this from my post:

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

POTUS should not come anywhere close to making it appear that aid is dependent on investigating one of his political rivals (or protecting one of his political allies). If that happened in Ukraine before 2016 it is just as wrong. Its pretty simple: aid and military support decisions-particularly those around Russia--have to be made solely based on what is best for the United States strategic interests. POTUS actions certainly make it appear that he was basing his decisions on what was best for him politically.

---

Please show evidence that he threatened to deny aid...

---

On Monday, The Washington Post first reported that the President had directed his acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to freeze nearly $400 million of US military and security aid to Ukraine in the days before he spoke with Zelensky.

He kept aid from Ukraine until a bi-partisan congress practically forced him to hand it over. Just because he was smart enough to not explicitly tie the two together doesn't mean the rest of the world cannot connect the dots.

I suppose if you don't have a videotape of him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, there is no possibility that he ever did anything wrong.

This set-up probably gives him legal cover and I am not sure he needs political cover. But acting like there is zero possibility that he was using US foreign policy to advance his own interests is just dumb.

---

I didn't say there is zero possibility, nice straw man though. I'm just asking for evidence, not inferences. That really isn't much to ask for.

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

A series of response all ignoring this from my post:

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

POTUS should not come anywhere close to making it appear that aid is dependent on investigating one of his political rivals (or protecting one of his political allies). If that happened in Ukraine before 2016 it is just as wrong. Its pretty simple: aid and military support decisions-particularly those around Russia--have to be made solely based on what is best for the United States strategic interests. POTUS actions certainly make it appear that he was basing his decisions on what was best for him politically.

---

Please show evidence that he threatened to deny aid...

---

On Monday, The Washington Post first reported that the President had directed his acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to freeze nearly $400 million of US military and security aid to Ukraine in the days before he spoke with Zelensky.

He kept aid from Ukraine until a bi-partisan congress practically forced him to hand it over. Just because he was smart enough to not explicitly tie the two together doesn't mean the rest of the world cannot connect the dots.

I suppose if you don't have a videotape of him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, there is no possibility that he ever did anything wrong.

This set-up probably gives him legal cover and I am not sure he needs political cover. But acting like there is zero possibility that he was using US foreign policy to advance his own interests is just dumb.

---

I didn't say there is zero possibility, nice straw man though. I'm just asking for evidence, not inferences. That really isn't much to ask for.

---

You asked for evidence that he denied aid. I gave you direct evidence that he denied aid. Congress later forced his hand.

If you are asking for evidence that he denied aid because he wanted Biden investigated you are going to get inference (some people call it common sense) unless POTUS was stupid enough to say that was the reason.

People on both sides will engage in the wackiest of conspiracy theories about their opponents and ignore plain evidence about their own guy. That is all that is happening here.

---

So you (and the WaPo) are taking an action by the president, that was justified for many other reasons, and inferring it was because he wanted Biden to be investigated. It very well may be the case that the investigation is the reason, but in the real world, we need evidence, not inferences. Inferences only work if you agree with the person making the inferences and disagree with the person that the inferences are being made against.

And you know I meant I was asking for evidence that he was denying aid because of the Biden investigation. Don't be obtuse.

---

5 years after Trump leaves office there are going to be 50 books on how awful he was as President. All written by people he hired.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

A series of response all ignoring this from my post:

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

POTUS should not come anywhere close to making it appear that aid is dependent on investigating one of his political rivals (or protecting one of his political allies). If that happened in Ukraine before 2016 it is just as wrong. Its pretty simple: aid and military support decisions-particularly those around Russia--have to be made solely based on what is best for the United States strategic interests. POTUS actions certainly make it appear that he was basing his decisions on what was best for him politically.

---

Please show evidence that he threatened to deny aid...

---

On Monday, The Washington Post first reported that the President had directed his acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to freeze nearly $400 million of US military and security aid to Ukraine in the days before he spoke with Zelensky.

He kept aid from Ukraine until a bi-partisan congress practically forced him to hand it over. Just because he was smart enough to not explicitly tie the two together doesn't mean the rest of the world cannot connect the dots.

---

This seems like a thin reed on which to hang impeachment of a president. He said he wanted Europe to pay more & that sounds reasonable.

And there is this. Please tell me what Joe did here:

Joe Biden:

"I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a b----. He got fired."

---

I didn't say I was for impeachment. I said I don't care if it was illegal or impeachable-it was wrong.

---

Was Biden's actions wrong?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

A series of response all ignoring this from my post:

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

POTUS should not come anywhere close to making it appear that aid is dependent on investigating one of his political rivals (or protecting one of his political allies). If that happened in Ukraine before 2016 it is just as wrong. Its pretty simple: aid and military support decisions-particularly those around Russia--have to be made solely based on what is best for the United States strategic interests. POTUS actions certainly make it appear that he was basing his decisions on what was best for him politically.

---

Please show evidence that he threatened to deny aid...

---

On Monday, The Washington Post first reported that the President had directed his acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to freeze nearly $400 million of US military and security aid to Ukraine in the days before he spoke with Zelensky.

He kept aid from Ukraine until a bi-partisan congress practically forced him to hand it over. Just because he was smart enough to not explicitly tie the two together doesn't mean the rest of the world cannot connect the dots.

I suppose if you don't have a videotape of him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, there is no possibility that he ever did anything wrong.

This set-up probably gives him legal cover and I am not sure he needs political cover. But acting like there is zero possibility that he was using US foreign policy to advance his own interests is just dumb.

---

I didn't say there is zero possibility, nice straw man though. I'm just asking for evidence, not inferences. That really isn't much to ask for.

---

You asked for evidence that he denied aid. I gave you direct evidence that he denied aid. Congress later forced his hand.

If you are asking for evidence that he denied aid because he wanted Biden investigated you are going to get inference (some people call it common sense) unless POTUS was stupid enough to say that was the reason.

People on both sides will engage in the wackiest of conspiracy theories about their opponents and ignore plain evidence about their own guy. That is all that is happening here.

---

So you (and the WaPo) are taking an action by the president, that was justified for many other reasons, and inferring it was because he wanted Biden to be investigated. It very well may be the case that the investigation is the reason, but in the real world, we need evidence, not inferences. Inferences only work if you agree with the person making the inferences and disagree with the person that the inferences are being made against.

And you know I meant I was asking for evidence that he was denying aid because of the Biden investigation. Don't be obtuse.

---

5 years after Trump leaves office there are going to be 50 books on how awful he was as President. All written by people he hired.

---

And you're giving me Bernie/Warren or a former vice president who did the same thing

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

A series of response all ignoring this from my post:

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

POTUS should not come anywhere close to making it appear that aid is dependent on investigating one of his political rivals (or protecting one of his political allies). If that happened in Ukraine before 2016 it is just as wrong. Its pretty simple: aid and military support decisions-particularly those around Russia--have to be made solely based on what is best for the United States strategic interests. POTUS actions certainly make it appear that he was basing his decisions on what was best for him politically.

---

Please show evidence that he threatened to deny aid...

---

On Monday, The Washington Post first reported that the President had directed his acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to freeze nearly $400 million of US military and security aid to Ukraine in the days before he spoke with Zelensky.

He kept aid from Ukraine until a bi-partisan congress practically forced him to hand it over. Just because he was smart enough to not explicitly tie the two together doesn't mean the rest of the world cannot connect the dots.

I suppose if you don't have a videotape of him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, there is no possibility that he ever did anything wrong.

This set-up probably gives him legal cover and I am not sure he needs political cover. But acting like there is zero possibility that he was using US foreign policy to advance his own interests is just dumb.

---

I didn't say there is zero possibility, nice straw man though. I'm just asking for evidence, not inferences. That really isn't much to ask for.

---

You asked for evidence that he denied aid. I gave you direct evidence that he denied aid. Congress later forced his hand.

If you are asking for evidence that he denied aid because he wanted Biden investigated you are going to get inference (some people call it common sense) unless POTUS was stupid enough to say that was the reason.

People on both sides will engage in the wackiest of conspiracy theories about their opponents and ignore plain evidence about their own guy. That is all that is happening here.

---

So you (and the WaPo) are taking an action by the president, that was justified for many other reasons, and inferring it was because he wanted Biden to be investigated. It very well may be the case that the investigation is the reason, but in the real world, we need evidence, not inferences. Inferences only work if you agree with the person making the inferences and disagree with the person that the inferences are being made against.

And you know I meant I was asking for evidence that he was denying aid because of the Biden investigation. Don't be obtuse.

---

5 years after Trump leaves office there are going to be 50 books on how awful he was as President. All written by people he hired.

---

And you're giving me Bernie/Warren or a former vice president who did the same thing

---

Might disagree about Joe somewhat based on the post above. But overall and sadly, yes. I would like to give you Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, Michael Bennett, Steve Bullock, Amy Klobuchar, Andrew yang, John Kasich, Mitt Romney or William Weld.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

A series of response all ignoring this from my post:

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

POTUS should not come anywhere close to making it appear that aid is dependent on investigating one of his political rivals (or protecting one of his political allies). If that happened in Ukraine before 2016 it is just as wrong. Its pretty simple: aid and military support decisions-particularly those around Russia--have to be made solely based on what is best for the United States strategic interests. POTUS actions certainly make it appear that he was basing his decisions on what was best for him politically.

---

Please show evidence that he threatened to deny aid...

---

On Monday, The Washington Post first reported that the President had directed his acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to freeze nearly $400 million of US military and security aid to Ukraine in the days before he spoke with Zelensky.

He kept aid from Ukraine until a bi-partisan congress practically forced him to hand it over. Just because he was smart enough to not explicitly tie the two together doesn't mean the rest of the world cannot connect the dots.

I suppose if you don't have a videotape of him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, there is no possibility that he ever did anything wrong.

This set-up probably gives him legal cover and I am not sure he needs political cover. But acting like there is zero possibility that he was using US foreign policy to advance his own interests is just dumb.

---

I didn't say there is zero possibility, nice straw man though. I'm just asking for evidence, not inferences. That really isn't much to ask for.

---

You asked for evidence that he denied aid. I gave you direct evidence that he denied aid. Congress later forced his hand.

If you are asking for evidence that he denied aid because he wanted Biden investigated you are going to get inference (some people call it common sense) unless POTUS was stupid enough to say that was the reason.

People on both sides will engage in the wackiest of conspiracy theories about their opponents and ignore plain evidence about their own guy. That is all that is happening here.

---

So you (and the WaPo) are taking an action by the president, that was justified for many other reasons, and inferring it was because he wanted Biden to be investigated. It very well may be the case that the investigation is the reason, but in the real world, we need evidence, not inferences. Inferences only work if you agree with the person making the inferences and disagree with the person that the inferences are being made against.

And you know I meant I was asking for evidence that he was denying aid because of the Biden investigation. Don't be obtuse.

---

5 years after Trump leaves office there are going to be 50 books on how awful he was as President. All written by people he hired.

---

And you're giving me Bernie/Warren or a former vice president who did the same thing

---

Might disagree about Joe somewhat based on the post above. But overall and sadly, yes. I would like to give you Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, Michael Bennett, Steve Bullock, Amy Klobuchar, Andrew yang, John Kasich, Mitt Romney or William Weld.

---

There are some good people on your list. I don't think any of them will be on the ballot next November

---

midgett said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

A series of response all ignoring this from my post:

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

POTUS should not come anywhere close to making it appear that aid is dependent on investigating one of his political rivals (or protecting one of his political allies). If that happened in Ukraine before 2016 it is just as wrong. Its pretty simple: aid and military support decisions-particularly those around Russia--have to be made solely based on what is best for the United States strategic interests. POTUS actions certainly make it appear that he was basing his decisions on what was best for him politically.

---

Please show evidence that he threatened to deny aid...

---

On Monday, The Washington Post first reported that the President had directed his acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to freeze nearly $400 million of US military and security aid to Ukraine in the days before he spoke with Zelensky.

He kept aid from Ukraine until a bi-partisan congress practically forced him to hand it over. Just because he was smart enough to not explicitly tie the two together doesn't mean the rest of the world cannot connect the dots.

I suppose if you don't have a videotape of him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, there is no possibility that he ever did anything wrong.

This set-up probably gives him legal cover and I am not sure he needs political cover. But acting like there is zero possibility that he was using US foreign policy to advance his own interests is just dumb.

---

Inferences and connecting dots is worthy of impeachment - that's what we are talking about - and Biden admitting he's withholding aid unless a prosecutor was fired immediately needs to be looked into.

Wow.

---

contrario said:

---

Nothing there, which late yesterday the democrats already realized. Which is now why they have moved the goal posts and are asking for recordings of the conversation and other conversations.

---

quash said:

---

contrario said:

---

Nothing there, which late yesterday the democrats already realized. Which is now why they have moved the goal posts and are asking for recordings of the conversation and other conversations.

---

Or, as I said before. If you remember Watergate you know better than to trust transcripts. Like one that takes 11 minutes to read aloud, of a thirty minute phone call. Perhaps the time difference is because of translations, but the transcript doesn't mention that. If there were translators they should be part of the transcript. Otherwise it's a summary.

Whatever it is the authoritarianism is breathtaking.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

One of these days reasonable people will realize....once and for all.....that the Washington Post and NYT are merely propaganda dispensaries for the Democratic Party .

And are not remotely unbiased or ethical news organizations.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

One of these days reasonable people will realize....once and for all.....that the Washington Post and NYT are merely propaganda dispensaries for the Democratic Party .

And are not remotely unbiased or ethical news organizations.

---

You said two things there. I agree that they are biased; that does not make them unethical. And I know of no evidence that would support a claim of "unethical." Do you have something in mind?

Also, where does one find unbiased reporting?

---

Both organizations have knowingly published false information about the POTUS knowing full well ...in advance....that their 'sources' were either unsubstantiated or completely false .

That is unethical.

As much as I dislike Trumps personality.....I detest far more the daily lies published about him.

Our media is completely out of control .

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

One of these days reasonable people will realize....once and for all.....that the Washington Post and NYT are merely propaganda dispensaries for the Democratic Party .

And are not remotely unbiased or ethical news organizations.

---

You said two things there. I agree that they are biased; that does not make them unethical. And I know of no evidence that would support a claim of "unethical." Do you have something in mind?

Also, where does one find unbiased reporting?

---

Their BLATANT lying makes them unethical.

Evidence by the recent Kavanaugh hit piece where the accuser doesn't even ****ing recall it and they still published it.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy gives Sue a roofie. She blacks out and he rapes her, Joe witnesses it.. Joe tells the cops. But hey, Sue doesn't recall what happened so it must not be true.

That is your logic.

Add to that the story you are talking about was an opinion piece based on a book where the NYT reporters very clearly give the caveat you accuse the paper of hiding.

Add to that the paper then acknowledged the caveat.

Try again.

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

One of these days reasonable people will realize....once and for all.....that the Washington Post and NYT are merely propaganda dispensaries for the Democratic Party .

And are not remotely unbiased or ethical news organizations.

---

You said two things there. I agree that they are biased; that does not make them unethical. And I know of no evidence that would support a claim of "unethical." Do you have something in mind?

Also, where does one find unbiased reporting?

---

Their BLATANT lying makes them unethical.

Evidence by the recent Kavanaugh hit piece where the accuser doesn't even ****ing recall it and they still published it.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy gives Sue a roofie. She blacks out and he rapes her, Joe witnesses it.. Joe tells the cops. But hey, Sue doesn't recall what happened so it must not be true.

That is your logic.

Add to that the story you are talking about was an opinion piece based on a book where the NYT reporters very clearly give the caveat you accuse the paper of hiding.

Add to that the paper then acknowledged the caveat.

Try again.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

One of these days reasonable people will realize....once and for all.....that the Washington Post and NYT are merely propaganda dispensaries for the Democratic Party .

And are not remotely unbiased or ethical news organizations.

---

You said two things there. I agree that they are biased; that does not make them unethical. And I know of no evidence that would support a claim of "unethical." Do you have something in mind?

Also, where does one find unbiased reporting?

---

Their BLATANT lying makes them unethical.

Evidence by the recent Kavanaugh hit piece where the accuser doesn't even ****ing recall it and they still published it.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy gives Sue a roofie. She blacks out and he rapes her, Joe witnesses it.. Joe tells the cops. But hey, Sue doesn't recall what happened so it must not be true.

That is your logic.

Add to that the story you are talking about was an opinion piece based on a book where the NYT reporters very clearly give the caveat you accuse the paper of hiding.

Add to that the paper then acknowledged the caveat.

Try again.

---

Except that there was no roofie, no blackout, and no call to the cops. Otherwise, yeah...that's the logic.

---

Booray said:

---

midgett said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

A series of response all ignoring this from my post:

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

POTUS should not come anywhere close to making it appear that aid is dependent on investigating one of his political rivals (or protecting one of his political allies). If that happened in Ukraine before 2016 it is just as wrong. Its pretty simple: aid and military support decisions-particularly those around Russia--have to be made solely based on what is best for the United States strategic interests. POTUS actions certainly make it appear that he was basing his decisions on what was best for him politically.

---

Please show evidence that he threatened to deny aid...

---

On Monday, The Washington Post first reported that the President had directed his acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to freeze nearly $400 million of US military and security aid to Ukraine in the days before he spoke with Zelensky.

He kept aid from Ukraine until a bi-partisan congress practically forced him to hand it over. Just because he was smart enough to not explicitly tie the two together doesn't mean the rest of the world cannot connect the dots.

I suppose if you don't have a videotape of him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, there is no possibility that he ever did anything wrong.

This set-up probably gives him legal cover and I am not sure he needs political cover. But acting like there is zero possibility that he was using US foreign policy to advance his own interests is just dumb.

---

Inferences and connecting dots is worthy of impeachment - that's what we are talking about - and Biden admitting he's withholding aid unless a prosecutor was fired immediately needs to be looked into.

Wow.

---

Wow is right. I specifically said I don't care about impeachment or prosecution. Twice. I am in no way arguing that he should be impeached or prosecuted over this. I am saying it is a great reason to vote against him.

Its not that difficult of a concept, but when you worship orange man the cognitive dissonance gets pretty strong I guess.

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

A series of response all ignoring this from my post:

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

POTUS should not come anywhere close to making it appear that aid is dependent on investigating one of his political rivals (or protecting one of his political allies). If that happened in Ukraine before 2016 it is just as wrong. Its pretty simple: aid and military support decisions-particularly those around Russia--have to be made solely based on what is best for the United States strategic interests. POTUS actions certainly make it appear that he was basing his decisions on what was best for him politically.

---

Please show evidence that he threatened to deny aid...

---

On Monday, The Washington Post first reported that the President had directed his acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to freeze nearly $400 million of US military and security aid to Ukraine in the days before he spoke with Zelensky.

He kept aid from Ukraine until a bi-partisan congress practically forced him to hand it over. Just because he was smart enough to not explicitly tie the two together doesn't mean the rest of the world cannot connect the dots.

I suppose if you don't have a videotape of him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, there is no possibility that he ever did anything wrong.

This set-up probably gives him legal cover and I am not sure he needs political cover. But acting like there is zero possibility that he was using US foreign policy to advance his own interests is just dumb.

---

I didn't say there is zero possibility, nice straw man though. I'm just asking for evidence, not inferences. That really isn't much to ask for.

---

You asked for evidence that he denied aid. I gave you direct evidence that he denied aid. Congress later forced his hand.

If you are asking for evidence that he denied aid because he wanted Biden investigated you are going to get inference (some people call it common sense) unless POTUS was stupid enough to say that was the reason.

People on both sides will engage in the wackiest of conspiracy theories about their opponents and ignore plain evidence about their own guy. That is all that is happening here.

---

So you (and the WaPo) are taking an action by the president, that was justified for many other reasons, and inferring it was because he wanted Biden to be investigated. It very well may be the case that the investigation is the reason, but in the real world, we need evidence, not inferences. Inferences only work if you agree with the person making the inferences and disagree with the person that the inferences are being made against.

And you know I meant I was asking for evidence that he was denying aid because of the Biden investigation. Don't be obtuse.

---

Not obtuse at all. In any trial the jury is instructed that they can consider direct and circumstantial evidence. Every day we make decisions based on direct and circumstantial evidence. I gave you direct evidence that he denied aid (at least for a while) and circumstantial evidence of his reasoning. Being obtuse is pretending that circumstantial evidence isn't evidence.

It may be that he had two reasons; actually it is highly likely that he had multiple reasons. But his "gut instinct" approach leaves him open to all of this sort of stuff. And it should because he is not running a privately held company where the consequences of his actions fall mostly on himself. He should be more careful about what he says. And he should quit confusing his own interests with the country;s interests.

5 years after Trump leaves office there are going to be 50 books on how awful he was as President. All written by people he hired.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

POTUS asked an ally dependent on U.S. military protection and foreign aid to investigate a political rival. That is wrong. Period, end of story.

I don't care if it is illegal or impeachable. It is wrong and no way to run a country. Minimize it all you want, but in doing so you are further degrading the country we all love.

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

---

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

contrario said:

---

Booray said:

---

A series of response all ignoring this from my post:

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

POTUS should not come anywhere close to making it appear that aid is dependent on investigating one of his political rivals (or protecting one of his political allies). If that happened in Ukraine before 2016 it is just as wrong. Its pretty simple: aid and military support decisions-particularly those around Russia--have to be made solely based on what is best for the United States strategic interests. POTUS actions certainly make it appear that he was basing his decisions on what was best for him politically.

---

Please show evidence that he threatened to deny aid...

---

On Monday, The Washington Post first reported that the President had directed his acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to freeze nearly $400 million of US military and security aid to Ukraine in the days before he spoke with Zelensky.

He kept aid from Ukraine until a bi-partisan congress practically forced him to hand it over. Just because he was smart enough to not explicitly tie the two together doesn't mean the rest of the world cannot connect the dots.

I suppose if you don't have a videotape of him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, there is no possibility that he ever did anything wrong.

This set-up probably gives him legal cover and I am not sure he needs political cover. But acting like there is zero possibility that he was using US foreign policy to advance his own interests is just dumb.

---

I didn't say there is zero possibility, nice straw man though. I'm just asking for evidence, not inferences. That really isn't much to ask for.

---

You asked for evidence that he denied aid. I gave you direct evidence that he denied aid. Congress later forced his hand.

If you are asking for evidence that he denied aid because he wanted Biden investigated you are going to get inference (some people call it common sense) unless POTUS was stupid enough to say that was the reason.

People on both sides will engage in the wackiest of conspiracy theories about their opponents and ignore plain evidence about their own guy. That is all that is happening here.

---

So you (and the WaPo) are taking an action by the president, that was justified for many other reasons, and inferring it was because he wanted Biden to be investigated. It very well may be the case that the investigation is the reason, but in the real world, we need evidence, not inferences. Inferences only work if you agree with the person making the inferences and disagree with the person that the inferences are being made against.

And you know I meant I was asking for evidence that he was denying aid because of the Biden investigation. Don't be obtuse.

---

Not obtuse at all. In any trial the jury is instructed that they can consider direct and circumstantial evidence. Every day we make decisions based on direct and circumstantial evidence. I gave you direct evidence that he denied aid (at least for a while) and circumstantial evidence of his reasoning. Being obtuse is pretending that circumstantial evidence isn't evidence.

It may be that he had two reasons; actually it is highly likely that he had multiple reasons. But his "gut instinct" approach leaves him open to all of this sort of stuff. And it should because he is not running a privately held company where the consequences of his actions fall mostly on himself. He should be more careful about what he says. And he should quit confusing his own interests with the country;s interests.

5 years after Trump leaves office there are going to be 50 books on how awful he was as President. All written by people he hired.

---

I doubt any president has ever perfectly distinguished his own interests from that of the country. What's different here is that Trump has no privacy in his communications.

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

POTUS asked an ally dependent on U.S. military protection and foreign aid to investigate a political rival. That is wrong. Period, end of story.

I don't care if it is illegal or impeachable. It is wrong and no way to run a country. Minimize it all you want, but in doing so you are further degrading the country we all love.

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

---

---

Is that the treaty Florda has been talking about?

---

Quote:

---

"To the Senate of the United States: With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998. I transmit also, for the information of the Senate, an exchange of notes which was signed on September 30, 1999, which provides for its provisional application, as well as the report of the Department of State with respect to the Treaty. The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in order to counter criminal activities more effectively. The Treaty should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution of a wide variety of crimes, including drug trafficking offenses. The Treaty is self-executing. It provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Treaty and give its advice and consent to ratification."

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

POTUS asked an ally dependent on U.S. military protection and foreign aid to investigate a political rival. That is wrong. Period, end of story.

I don't care if it is illegal or impeachable. It is wrong and no way to run a country. Minimize it all you want, but in doing so you are further degrading the country we all love.

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

---

---

Is that the treaty Florda has been talking about?

---

Quote:

---

"To the Senate of the United States: With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998. I transmit also, for the information of the Senate, an exchange of notes which was signed on September 30, 1999, which provides for its provisional application, as well as the report of the Department of State with respect to the Treaty. The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in order to counter criminal activities more effectively. The Treaty should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution of a wide variety of crimes, including drug trafficking offenses. The Treaty is self-executing. It provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Treaty and give its advice and consent to ratification."

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.

---

---