Osodecentx said:

---

Let's start here: I've never been impressed with Trump's intelligence. Our "genius" doth protest too much.

However, is he luring Democrats into this impeachment stuff? Is he that smart or just lucky (like inheriting $100 million)?

Can it be?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Let's start here: I've never been impressed with Trump's intelligence. Our "genius" doth protest too much.

However, is he luring Democrats into this impeachment stuff? Is he that smart or just lucky (like inheriting $100 million)?

Can it be?

---

That would be quite the gamble. Trump isn't Bill Clinton, and this isn't anything close to the Lewinsky affair, there is really no reason to think an impeachment of Trump would play out like the previous impeachment of Clinton.

People who study history have usually heard this saying, "armies are always well prepared for the last war, but not for the current war". In other words, people fall into the trap of thinking things will play out like they did the last time we did this, but reality tends to differ as the circumstances do. That's how you end up with something like WWI, where millions of soldiers marched towards killing grounds covered by incoming fire, because that's more or less how war was waged up to that point and they didn't adapt their tactics to the new equipment available.

Trump is already deeply unlikeable, I don't see anyone who doesn't love him already rallying to his cause to defend the actions he's accused of. Not sure how much impeachment really hurts him, but I seriously doubt it will benefit him like what happenned to Clinton.

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Let's start here: I've never been impressed with Trump's intelligence. Our "genius" doth protest too much.

However, is he luring Democrats into this impeachment stuff? Is he that smart or just lucky (like inheriting $100 million)?

Can it be?

---

That would be quite the gamble. Trump isn't Bill Clinton, and this isn't anything close to the Lewinsky affair, there is really no reason to think an impeachment of Trump would play out like the previous impeachment of Clinton.

People who study history have usually heard this saying, "armies are always well prepared for the last war, but not for the current war". In other words, people fall into the trap of thinking things will play out like they did the last time we did this, but reality tends to differ as the circumstances do. That's how you end up with something like WWI, where millions of soldiers marched towards killing grounds covered by incoming fire, because that's more or less how war was waged up to that point and they didn't adapt their tactics to the new equipment available.

Trump is already deeply unlikeable, I don't see anyone who doesn't love him already rallying to his cause to defend the actions he's accused of. Not sure how much impeachment really hurts him, but I seriously doubt it will benefit him like what happenned to Clinton.

---

Please don't let your political acumen prove to be just as faulty as your scientific acumen. Impeachment proceedings on the whispy and nebulous issues proposed would look really bad for the cause of the Democrat party. Most American voters will see this as the political game that it is. So many Democrats are living in the past that they can't see when it is their party that has turned corrupt.

Osodecentx said:

---

Let's start here: I've never been impressed with Trump's intelligence. Our "genius" doth protest too much.

However, is he luring Democrats into this impeachment stuff? Is he that smart or just lucky (like inheriting $100 million)?

Can it be?

---

100% he's doing it.

Did you see the impeachment video he had up immediately when Democrats broke the "impeachment" news?

He's always one step ahead.

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Let's start here: I've never been impressed with Trump's intelligence. Our "genius" doth protest too much.

However, is he luring Democrats into this impeachment stuff? Is he that smart or just lucky (like inheriting $100 million)?

Can it be?

---

That would be quite the gamble. Trump isn't Bill Clinton, and this isn't anything close to the Lewinsky affair, there is really no reason to think an impeachment of Trump would play out like the previous impeachment of Clinton.

People who study history have usually heard this saying, "armies are always well prepared for the last war, but not for the current war". In other words, people fall into the trap of thinking things will play out like they did the last time we did this, but reality tends to differ as the circumstances do. That's how you end up with something like WWI, where millions of soldiers marched towards killing grounds covered by incoming fire, because that's more or less how war was waged up to that point and they didn't adapt their tactics to the new equipment available.

Trump is already deeply unlikeable, I don't see anyone who doesn't love him already rallying to his cause to defend the actions he's accused of. Not sure how much impeachment really hurts him, but I seriously doubt it will benefit him like what happenned to Clinton.

---

Republicans need to get set for it: Judge Napolitano said it on Fox News. President has admitted to a crime. The question remains whether or not bribery can be established. But Trump has spent the past 3 years arguing that he never asked a foreign power for help in the 2016 election and he just asked for help in the 2020. It does not get any dumber than this. This looks like 74 all over again. Trump had survived Mueller, it looks now like he will be facing Warren--who is weakest in the states Trump needs to secure to win. He is now looking at impeachment based wholly on a self-inflicted error (he will be impeached, and will not be convicted, but it could now end up being closer than anyone thought). Trumpsters can say he is igniting his base, but what is going to gnaw for the next few months, like it did Nixon, is how arrogant and stupid this all makes him look.

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Let's start here: I've never been impressed with Trump's intelligence. Our "genius" doth protest too much.

However, is he luring Democrats into this impeachment stuff? Is he that smart or just lucky (like inheriting $100 million)?

Can it be?

---

That would be quite the gamble.

Trump is already deeply unlikeable, I don't see anyone who doesn't love him already rallying to his cause to defend the actions he's accused of.

---

It is a gamble, no doubt about it.

Trump is unlikeable, no doubt.

I am hearing from a couple of folks (out of state) who voted for Hillary who will vote for him next year (given the current Democrat field). I'm not sure what is going on out here.

#SwainTheDramp

- KKM

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Let's start here: I've never been impressed with Trump's intelligence. Our "genius" doth protest too much.

However, is he luring Democrats into this impeachment stuff? Is he that smart or just lucky (like inheriting $100 million)?

Can it be?

---

That would be quite the gamble. Trump isn't Bill Clinton, and this isn't anything close to the Lewinsky affair, there is really no reason to think an impeachment of Trump would play out like the previous impeachment of Clinton.

People who study history have usually heard this saying, "armies are always well prepared for the last war, but not for the current war". In other words, people fall into the trap of thinking things will play out like they did the last time we did this, but reality tends to differ as the circumstances do. That's how you end up with something like WWI, where millions of soldiers marched towards killing grounds covered by incoming fire, because that's more or less how war was waged up to that point and they didn't adapt their tactics to the new equipment available.

Trump is already deeply unlikeable, I don't see anyone who doesn't love him already rallying to his cause to defend the actions he's accused of. Not sure how much impeachment really hurts him, but I seriously doubt it will benefit him like what happenned to Clinton.

---

Republicans need to get set for it: Judge Napolitano said it on Fox News. President has admitted to a crime. The question remains whether or not bribery can be established. But Trump has spent the past 3 years arguing that he never asked a foreign power for help in the 2016 election and he just asked for help in the 2020. It does not get any dumber than this. This looks like 74 all over again. Trump had survived Mueller, it looks now like he will be facing Warren--who is weakest in the states Trump needs to secure to win. He is now looking at impeachment based wholly on a self-inflicted error (he will be impeached, and will not be convicted, but it could now end up being closer than anyone thought). Trumpsters can say he is igniting his base, but what is going to gnaw for the next few months, like it did Nixon, is how arrogant and stupid this all makes him look.

---

How did he ask for help with the 2020 election?

---

When you ask a Foreign Leader to deliver dirt on your political opponent, you are asking that power to interfere in an election in the United States. In the words of Judge Napolitano, it is a crime that Trump as admitted to.

---

So asking for facts about a crime committed by Hunter Biden, who committed said crimes with a threat of withheld foreign aide from the US by Pres Obama and VP Biden, is somehow also a crime?

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Let's start here: I've never been impressed with Trump's intelligence. Our "genius" doth protest too much.

However, is he luring Democrats into this impeachment stuff? Is he that smart or just lucky (like inheriting $100 million)?

Can it be?

---

That would be quite the gamble. Trump isn't Bill Clinton, and this isn't anything close to the Lewinsky affair, there is really no reason to think an impeachment of Trump would play out like the previous impeachment of Clinton.

People who study history have usually heard this saying, "armies are always well prepared for the last war, but not for the current war". In other words, people fall into the trap of thinking things will play out like they did the last time we did this, but reality tends to differ as the circumstances do. That's how you end up with something like WWI, where millions of soldiers marched towards killing grounds covered by incoming fire, because that's more or less how war was waged up to that point and they didn't adapt their tactics to the new equipment available.

Trump is already deeply unlikeable, I don't see anyone who doesn't love him already rallying to his cause to defend the actions he's accused of. Not sure how much impeachment really hurts him, but I seriously doubt it will benefit him like what happenned to Clinton.

---

Republicans need to get set for it: Judge Napolitano said it on Fox News. President has admitted to a crime. The question remains whether or not bribery can be established. But Trump has spent the past 3 years arguing that he never asked a foreign power for help in the 2016 election and he just asked for help in the 2020. It does not get any dumber than this. This looks like 74 all over again. Trump had survived Mueller, it looks now like he will be facing Warren--who is weakest in the states Trump needs to secure to win. He is now looking at impeachment based wholly on a self-inflicted error (he will be impeached, and will not be convicted, but it could now end up being closer than anyone thought). Trumpsters can say he is igniting his base, but what is going to gnaw for the next few months, like it did Nixon, is how arrogant and stupid this all makes him look.

---

How did he ask for help with the 2020 election?

---

When you ask a Foreign Leader to deliver dirt on your political opponent, you are asking that power to interfere in an election in the United States. In the words of Judge Napolitano, it is a crime that Trump as admitted to.

---

Except that's not what he did. He's asking for help in investigating illegal activities.

---

"Asking for help". Y'all love to leave out the part about withholding the defense aid, even though Trump admits he held it back. That's not just asking, that's coercion.

contrario said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Let's start here: I've never been impressed with Trump's intelligence. Our "genius" doth protest too much.

However, is he luring Democrats into this impeachment stuff? Is he that smart or just lucky (like inheriting $100 million)?

Can it be?

---

That would be quite the gamble. Trump isn't Bill Clinton, and this isn't anything close to the Lewinsky affair, there is really no reason to think an impeachment of Trump would play out like the previous impeachment of Clinton.

People who study history have usually heard this saying, "armies are always well prepared for the last war, but not for the current war". In other words, people fall into the trap of thinking things will play out like they did the last time we did this, but reality tends to differ as the circumstances do. That's how you end up with something like WWI, where millions of soldiers marched towards killing grounds covered by incoming fire, because that's more or less how war was waged up to that point and they didn't adapt their tactics to the new equipment available.

Trump is already deeply unlikeable, I don't see anyone who doesn't love him already rallying to his cause to defend the actions he's accused of. Not sure how much impeachment really hurts him, but I seriously doubt it will benefit him like what happenned to Clinton.

---

Republicans need to get set for it: Judge Napolitano said it on Fox News. President has admitted to a crime. The question remains whether or not bribery can be established. But Trump has spent the past 3 years arguing that he never asked a foreign power for help in the 2016 election and he just asked for help in the 2020. It does not get any dumber than this. This looks like 74 all over again. Trump had survived Mueller, it looks now like he will be facing Warren--who is weakest in the states Trump needs to secure to win. He is now looking at impeachment based wholly on a self-inflicted error (he will be impeached, and will not be convicted, but it could now end up being closer than anyone thought). Trumpsters can say he is igniting his base, but what is going to gnaw for the next few months, like it did Nixon, is how arrogant and stupid this all makes him look.

---

How did he ask for help with the 2020 election?

---

When you ask a Foreign Leader to deliver dirt on your political opponent, you are asking that power to interfere in an election in the United States. In the words of Judge Napolitano, it is a crime that Trump as admitted to.

---

Except that's not what he did. He's asking for help in investigating illegal activities.

---

"Asking for help". Y'all love to leave out the part about withholding the defense aid, even though Trump admits he held it back. That's not just asking, that's coercion.

---

Show me evidence that the aid was withheld because of the Biden investigation. That's the issue at hand. The transcript was supposed to have that evidence, but no. If you can't prove that, it isn't coercion, it is connecting unrelated dots to meet your narrative, a narrative many on the left have abandoned now.

---

Trump can't even keep his reasons straight, he's changed his story 3 times in 3 days. To most normal people, lying like that is suspicious and warrants further investigation. For y'all that live in Trump's a$$, I guess getting caught in obvious lies is no biggie.

Osodecentx said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

contrario said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Let's start here: I've never been impressed with Trump's intelligence. Our "genius" doth protest too much.

However, is he luring Democrats into this impeachment stuff? Is he that smart or just lucky (like inheriting $100 million)?

Can it be?

---

That would be quite the gamble. Trump isn't Bill Clinton, and this isn't anything close to the Lewinsky affair, there is really no reason to think an impeachment of Trump would play out like the previous impeachment of Clinton.

People who study history have usually heard this saying, "armies are always well prepared for the last war, but not for the current war". In other words, people fall into the trap of thinking things will play out like they did the last time we did this, but reality tends to differ as the circumstances do. That's how you end up with something like WWI, where millions of soldiers marched towards killing grounds covered by incoming fire, because that's more or less how war was waged up to that point and they didn't adapt their tactics to the new equipment available.

Trump is already deeply unlikeable, I don't see anyone who doesn't love him already rallying to his cause to defend the actions he's accused of. Not sure how much impeachment really hurts him, but I seriously doubt it will benefit him like what happenned to Clinton.

---

Republicans need to get set for it: Judge Napolitano said it on Fox News. President has admitted to a crime. The question remains whether or not bribery can be established. But Trump has spent the past 3 years arguing that he never asked a foreign power for help in the 2016 election and he just asked for help in the 2020. It does not get any dumber than this. This looks like 74 all over again. Trump had survived Mueller, it looks now like he will be facing Warren--who is weakest in the states Trump needs to secure to win. He is now looking at impeachment based wholly on a self-inflicted error (he will be impeached, and will not be convicted, but it could now end up being closer than anyone thought). Trumpsters can say he is igniting his base, but what is going to gnaw for the next few months, like it did Nixon, is how arrogant and stupid this all makes him look.

---

How did he ask for help with the 2020 election?

---

When you ask a Foreign Leader to deliver dirt on your political opponent, you are asking that power to interfere in an election in the United States. In the words of Judge Napolitano, it is a crime that Trump as admitted to.

---

Except that's not what he did. He's asking for help in investigating illegal activities.

---

"Asking for help". Y'all love to leave out the part about withholding the defense aid, even though Trump admits he held it back. That's not just asking, that's coercion.

---

Show me evidence that the aid was withheld because of the Biden investigation. That's the issue at hand. The transcript was supposed to have that evidence, but no. If you can't prove that, it isn't coercion, it is connecting unrelated dots to meet your narrative, a narrative many on the left have abandoned now.

---

Trump can't even keep his reasons straight, he's changed his story 3 times in 3 days. To most normal people, lying like that is suspicious and warrants further investigation. For y'all that live in Trump's a$$, I guess getting caught in obvious lies is no biggie.

---

The transcript looks like a flimsy reason to impeach.

You swung and missed with Mueller. You swung and missed with Ukraine.

---

That's a good distillation of the real problem in all of this. POTUS is openly corrupt and an unrepentant criminal, but to y'all it's all just a team game and long-shot attempts at accountability are celebrated as "swing and a miss". It's not a game, and even though it may not matter to you Trump has made us the laughing stock of the entire world. Don't you ever feel just a little bit of shame about supporting such an obvious scumbag who has nothing but contempt for the people that cover for him?

Don't let anyone tell you the "do us a favor" language was followed by a request to investigate Biden. It wasn't. It was about Crowdstrike and Mueller:



They're already trying to attach "favor" to "Biden" in this dishonest way, just like how they still to this day deliberately misquote Trump's Charlottesville remarks. In both cases, objective reality that is documented and freely available easily and completely proves them to be liars, but they will continue to lie and lie and lie regardless.

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Let's start here: I've never been impressed with Trump's intelligence. Our "genius" doth protest too much.

However, is he luring Democrats into this impeachment stuff? Is he that smart or just lucky (like inheriting $100 million)?

Can it be?

---

That would be quite the gamble. Trump isn't Bill Clinton, and this isn't anything close to the Lewinsky affair, there is really no reason to think an impeachment of Trump would play out like the previous impeachment of Clinton.

People who study history have usually heard this saying, "armies are always well prepared for the last war, but not for the current war". In other words, people fall into the trap of thinking things will play out like they did the last time we did this, but reality tends to differ as the circumstances do. That's how you end up with something like WWI, where millions of soldiers marched towards killing grounds covered by incoming fire, because that's more or less how war was waged up to that point and they didn't adapt their tactics to the new equipment available.

Trump is already deeply unlikeable, I don't see anyone who doesn't love him already rallying to his cause to defend the actions he's accused of. Not sure how much impeachment really hurts him, but I seriously doubt it will benefit him like what happenned to Clinton.

---

Republicans need to get set for it: Judge Napolitano said it on Fox News. President has admitted to a crime. The question remains whether or not bribery can be established. But Trump has spent the past 3 years arguing that he never asked a foreign power for help in the 2016 election and he just asked for help in the 2020. It does not get any dumber than this. This looks like 74 all over again. Trump had survived Mueller, it looks now like he will be facing Warren--who is weakest in the states Trump needs to secure to win. He is now looking at impeachment based wholly on a self-inflicted error (he will be impeached, and will not be convicted, but it could now end up being closer than anyone thought). Trumpsters can say he is igniting his base, but what is going to gnaw for the next few months, like it did Nixon, is how arrogant and stupid this all makes him look.

---

Napolitano was wrong.

And at this point whatever's good for Warren is good for Trump.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

twd74 said:

---

When you ask a Foreign Leader to deliver dirt on your political opponent, you are asking that power to interfere in an election in the United States.

---

How can this be true? So in theory, if someone is suspected of committing a murder in a foreign country, the President can't ask them to investigate, if that person just so happens to be running for president?

Also, didn't the DNC solicit help from Ukraine to get dirt on Trump during the 2016 election?

---

I was referring to the US law prohibiting a candidate for high office from soliciting assistance from a foreign country in His election. Asking for salacious info on an opponent is exactly that.

If to borrow your example, a President asked the foreign leader to murder someone, it would be a crime as well--although I suppose if he wasn't offering paying for the service, some here would argue no quid pro quo.

twd74 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

twd74 said:

---

When you ask a Foreign Leader to deliver dirt on your political opponent, you are asking that power to interfere in an election in the United States.

---

How can this be true? So in theory, if someone is suspected of committing a murder in a foreign country, the President can't ask them to investigate, if that person just so happens to be running for president?

Also, didn't the DNC solicit help from Ukraine to get dirt on Trump during the 2016 election?

---

I was referring to the US law prohibiting a candidate for high office from soliciting assistance from a foreign country in His election. Asking for salacious info on an opponent is exactly that.

If to borrow your example, a President asked the foreign leader to murder someone, it would be a crime as well--although I suppose if he wasn't offering paying for the service, some here would argue no quid pro quo.

---

Except that he wasn't asking for that...

Sam Lowry said:

---

twd74 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

twd74 said:

---

When you ask a Foreign Leader to deliver dirt on your political opponent, you are asking that power to interfere in an election in the United States.

---

How can this be true? So in theory, if someone is suspected of committing a murder in a foreign country, the President can't ask them to investigate, if that person just so happens to be running for president?

Also, didn't the DNC solicit help from Ukraine to get dirt on Trump during the 2016 election?

---

I was referring to the US law prohibiting a candidate for high office from soliciting assistance from a foreign country in His election. Asking for salacious info on an opponent is exactly that.

If to borrow your example, a President asked the foreign leader to murder someone, it would be a crime as well--although I suppose if he wasn't offering paying for the service, some here would argue no quid pro quo.

---

There's no such law. Otherwise Hillary would have broken it by commissioning the Steele dossier.

---

30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92225, title III, 319, formerly 324, as added Pub. L. 94283, title I, 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493 ; renumbered 319, Pub. L. 96187, title I, 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354 ; amended Pub. L. 107155, title III, 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96 , 109.)

twd74 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

twd74 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

twd74 said:

---

When you ask a Foreign Leader to deliver dirt on your political opponent, you are asking that power to interfere in an election in the United States.

---

How can this be true? So in theory, if someone is suspected of committing a murder in a foreign country, the President can't ask them to investigate, if that person just so happens to be running for president?

Also, didn't the DNC solicit help from Ukraine to get dirt on Trump during the 2016 election?

---

I was referring to the US law prohibiting a candidate for high office from soliciting assistance from a foreign country in His election. Asking for salacious info on an opponent is exactly that.

If to borrow your example, a President asked the foreign leader to murder someone, it would be a crime as well--although I suppose if he wasn't offering paying for the service, some here would argue no quid pro quo.

---

There's no such law. Otherwise Hillary would have broken it by commissioning the Steele dossier.

---

30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92225, title III, 319, formerly 324, as added Pub. L. 94283, title I, 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493 ; renumbered 319, Pub. L. 96187, title I, 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354 ; amended Pub. L. 107155, title III, 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96 , 109.)

---

Contributions or donations of money or other things of value. Doesn't say anything about "assistance."

Hard to see how opposition research/info isn't something of value when campaigns guns pay so much for it.

Booray said:

---

Hard to see how opposition research/info isn't something of value when campaigns guns pay so much for it.

---

You should take that up with Hillary. Also note that no information was ever passed to the Trump campaign, nor would it need to be even if there was a quid pro quo. The likely result would only be the publicly available fact of an investigation of Biden and whatever consequences followed from it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Hard to see how opposition research/info isn't something of value when campaigns guns pay so much for it.

---

You should take that up with Hillary. Also note that no information was ever passed to the Trump campaign, nor would it need to be even if there was a quid pro quo. The likely result would only be the publicly available fact of an investigation of Biden and whatever consequences followed from it.

---

1. I didn't vote for Hillary.

2. A huge portion of DJT's base said she should be locked up for criminal activity. It is the height of hypocrisy to ignore their own man doing similar stuff. Drain the swamp my asss.

3. Read the statute. It outlaws foreign nationals from giving things to candidates. Selling things to candidates is not outlawed. So buying opposing research from a foreign national would be ok as long as a candidate pays full price for it. That isn't a donation, it is a sale.

4. Trump's problem under the statute is that he solicited something of value. Ask yourself this question: would a corruption investigation into his leading political rival and son be politically valuable to Trump? Of course it would.

5. If there is no quid pro quo he his asking the Ukrainian government for a favor-something of value for free. That is a campaign finance violation under the statute. If there is a quid pro quo, he is using tax dollars to benefit his campaign, which is an abuse of his office.

6. The real issue and possible defense is that there was actual corruption and an attempt by then VP Biden to use his position to cover it up; Biden's own abuse of power. How does one deal with dual motives: a legitimate investigation that happens to create a political benefit?

7. I could buy that defense if there had been a real investigation. In that instance the attorney general would have been making the request. It would have been in writing. Etc., etc. But none of that happened here. This was just DJT either 1) asking a foreign national to dig up dirt (or worse-to make up dirt) or (2) extorting the same thing with the withholding of aid as the threat. Either would be illegal.

8. Again, "but Hillary" is not a defense. But I am not aware of any allegation against Clinton that fits this scenario.

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Hard to see how opposition research/info isn't something of value when campaigns guns pay so much for it.

---

You should take that up with Hillary. Also note that no information was ever passed to the Trump campaign, nor would it need to be even if there was a quid pro quo. The likely result would only be the publicly available fact of an investigation of Biden and whatever consequences followed from it.

---

1. I didn't vote for Hillary.

2. A huge portion of DJT's base said she should be locked up for criminal activity. It is the height of hypocrisy to ignore their own man doing similar stuff. Drain the swamp my asss.

3. Read the statute. It outlaws foreign nationals from giving things to candidates. Selling things to candidates is not outlawed. So buying opposing research from a foreign national would be ok as long as a candidate pays full price for it. That isn't a donation, it is a sale.

4. Trump's problem under the statute is that he solicited something of value. Ask yourself this question: would a corruption investigation into his leading political rival and son be politically valuable to Trump? Of course it would.

5. If there is no quid pro quo he his asking the Ukrainian government for a favor-something of value for free. That is a campaign finance violation under the statute. If there is a quid pro quo, he is using tax dollars to benefit his campaign, which is an abuse of his office.

6. The real issue and possible defense is that there was actual corruption and an attempt by then VP Biden to use his position to cover it up; Biden's own abuse of power. How does one deal with dual motives: a legitimate investigation that happens to create a political benefit?

7. I could buy that defense if there had been a real investigation. In that instance the attorney general would have been making the request. It would have been in writing. Etc., etc. But none of that happened here. This was just DJT either 1) asking a foreign national to dig up dirt (or worse-to make up dirt) or (2) extorting the same thing with the withholding of aid as the threat. Either would be illegal.

8. Again, "but Hillary" is not a defense. But I am not aware of any allegation against Clinton that fits this scenario.

---

1. I didn't either.
2. Yes, they did. He hasn't done the same thing, but I didn't think she should be locked up.
3. OK.
4. What did he solicit?
5. How did he do this? What is he asking for himself?
6. We can't
7. Aid was not withheld for that reason
8. I have more problems with Hillary lying to the families of dead soldiers/Americans than anything else.

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Hard to see how opposition research/info isn't something of value when campaigns guns pay so much for it.

---

You should take that up with Hillary. Also note that no information was ever passed to the Trump campaign, nor would it need to be even if there was a quid pro quo. The likely result would only be the publicly available fact of an investigation of Biden and whatever consequences followed from it.

---

1. I didn't vote for Hillary.

2. A huge portion of DJT's base said she should be locked up for criminal activity. It is the height of hypocrisy to ignore their own man doing similar stuff. Drain the swamp my asss.

3. Read the statute. It outlaws foreign nationals from giving things to candidates. Selling things to candidates is not outlawed. So buying opposing research from a foreign national would be ok as long as a candidate pays full price for it. That isn't a donation, it is a sale.

4. Trump's problem under the statute is that he solicited something of value. Ask yourself this question: would a corruption investigation into his leading political rival and son be politically valuable to Trump? Of course it would.

5. If there is no quid pro quo he his asking the Ukrainian government for a favor-something of value for free. That is a campaign finance violation under the statute. If there is a quid pro quo, he is using tax dollars to benefit his campaign, which is an abuse of his office.

6. The real issue and possible defense is that there was actual corruption and an attempt by then VP Biden to use his position to cover it up; Biden's own abuse of power. How does one deal with dual motives: a legitimate investigation that happens to create a political benefit?

7. I could buy that defense if there had been a real investigation. In that instance the attorney general would have been making the request. It would have been in writing. Etc., etc. But none of that happened here. This was just DJT either 1) asking a foreign national to dig up dirt (or worse-to make up dirt) or (2) extorting the same thing with the withholding of aid as the threat. Either would be illegal.

8. Again, "but Hillary" is not a defense. But I am not aware of any allegation against Clinton that fits this scenario.

---

1. I didn't either.
2. Yes, they did. He hasn't done the same thing, but I didn't think she should be locked up.
3. OK.
4. What did he solicit?
5. How did he do this? What is he asking for himself?
6. We can't
7. Aid was not withheld for that reason
8. I have more problems with Hillary lying to the families of dead soldiers/Americans than anything else.

---

He solicited an investigation into a political rival. That investigation would benefit him politically. Therefore, it is a thing of value. As I pointed out, if there is no quid pro quo that thing of value would be a contribution from a foreign national and potentially a campaign violation. If there is a quid pro quo, he is using taxpayer money to bargain for his own political benefit, which is an abuse of power.

If there had been a real U.S. Investigation into the Bidens, the fact that the investigation would benefit POTUS politically would not be as troubling. But there was no investigation.

At the start of all this I said what he did was wrong but I don't think that impeachment was where we should go. I stand by that.

But the always Trumpers who can't see the ethical problems with his conduct continue to amaze me. The President is making foreign policy decisions based on what is best for him politically rather than what is best for the country. And I don't mean he is choosing the wrong policy: I mean he is making self-interested decisions. It is as plain as the nose on your face and it is sad.

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Hard to see how opposition research/info isn't something of value when campaigns guns pay so much for it.

---

You should take that up with Hillary. Also note that no information was ever passed to the Trump campaign, nor would it need to be even if there was a quid pro quo. The likely result would only be the publicly available fact of an investigation of Biden and whatever consequences followed from it.

---

1. I didn't vote for Hillary.

2. A huge portion of DJT's base said she should be locked up for criminal activity. It is the height of hypocrisy to ignore their own man doing similar stuff. Drain the swamp my asss.

3. Read the statute. It outlaws foreign nationals from giving things to candidates. Selling things to candidates is not outlawed. So buying opposing research from a foreign national would be ok as long as a candidate pays full price for it. That isn't a donation, it is a sale.

4. Trump's problem under the statute is that he solicited something of value. Ask yourself this question: would a corruption investigation into his leading political rival and son be politically valuable to Trump? Of course it would.

5. If there is no quid pro quo he his asking the Ukrainian government for a favor-something of value for free. That is a campaign finance violation under the statute. If there is a quid pro quo, he is using tax dollars to benefit his campaign, which is an abuse of his office.

6. The real issue and possible defense is that there was actual corruption and an attempt by then VP Biden to use his position to cover it up; Biden's own abuse of power. How does one deal with dual motives: a legitimate investigation that happens to create a political benefit?

7. I could buy that defense if there had been a real investigation. In that instance the attorney general would have been making the request. It would have been in writing. Etc., etc. But none of that happened here. This was just DJT either 1) asking a foreign national to dig up dirt (or worse-to make up dirt) or (2) extorting the same thing with the withholding of aid as the threat. Either would be illegal.

8. Again, "but Hillary" is not a defense. But I am not aware of any allegation against Clinton that fits this scenario.

---

1. I didn't either.
2. Yes, they did. He hasn't done the same thing, but I didn't think she should be locked up.
3. OK.
4. What did he solicit?
5. How did he do this? What is he asking for himself?
6. We can't
7. Aid was not withheld for that reason
8. I have more problems with Hillary lying to the families of dead soldiers/Americans than anything else.

---

He solicited an investigation into a political rival. That investigation would benefit him politically. Therefore, it is a thing of value. As I pointed out, if there is no quid pro quo that thing of value would be a contribution from a foreign national and potentially a campaign violation. If there is a quid pro quo, he is using taxpayer money to bargain for his own political benefit, which is an abuse of power.

If there had been a real U.S. Investigation into the Bidens, the fact that the investigation would benefit POTUS politically would not be as troubling. But there was no investigation.

At the start of all this I said what he did was wrong but I don't think that impeachment was where we should go. I stand by that.

But the always Trumpers who can't see the ethical problems with his conduct continue to amaze me. The President is making foreign policy decisions based on what is best for him politically rather than what is best for the country. And I don't mean he is choosing the wrong policy: I mean he is making self-interested decisions. It is as plain as the nose on your face and it is sad.

---

It's not just ironic, but very telling, that Republicans screamed for years about Hillary's emails compromising national security and then when it turns out that Trump has compromised our national security with leaders all over the world for personal or political gain, not a peep from them.