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.

---

I don't know how else to tell this, but Ukraine, Biden and the last administration weaponized the intelligence community to go after Trump before and after he was elected and these efforts by President Trump are to get to the bottom of it.

There is actual corruption and our President is ensuring that other countries involved are complying. That's why he asked about Crowdstrike.

Mr. Joe Biden doesn't get a pass because he's running for President.

Democrats used the Mueller SC to influence 2018 midterms...OK. This whole fake whistleblower account, even if it were true, is not even close in political dirt that Democrats get away with.

You're going to learn just how corrupt your Democrats are here in about a couple of weeks.

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

I don't know how else to tell this, but Ukraine, Biden and the last administration weaponized the intelligence community to go after Trump before and after he was elected and these efforts by President Trump are to get to the bottom of it.

There is actual corruption and our President is ensuring that other countries involved are complying. That's why he asked about Crowdstrike.

Mr. Joe Biden doesn't get a pass because he's running for President.

Democrats used the Mueller SC to influence 2018 midterms...OK. This whole fake whistleblower account, even if it were true, is not even close in political dirt that Democrats get away with.

You're going to learn just how corrupt your Democrats are here in about a couple of weeks.

---

You have been saying that for two years now.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Calling something a "thing of value" because it benefits him politically, and therefore applicable to the statute being discussed, is way too broad. Anything a first-term president does regarding foreign policy matters has the potential to benefit him politically if it turns out to be successful, because it would improve his approval ratings and help his re-election campaign. Therefore, a president is almost always potentially benefiting himself politically using tax dollars. Even more absurd is to consider that "thing of value" a "campaign contribution", a ridiculous stretch that just seems like a partisan attempt to nail him on something...anything.

Regardless, whether or not soliciting an investigation would benefit him politically is irrelevant; what matters is if there is a good reason for it, i.e. probable cause. If it were a matter of justice, for example, then "politically beneficial" shouldn't be a consideration. If there is potential corruption involving a U.S. presidential candidate overseas, wouldn't that be very important to find out in order to preserve the integrity of the office? Wasn't that the DNC's rationale for soliciting help from Ukraine into then candidate Trump's past activities overseas? Taking it to an extreme, if someone commits murder overseas, a sitting president can't ask for it to be investigated if the suspect just so happens to be running for office against him, because it would be politically beneficial.... or a campaign violation? Obviously, your reasoning needs a little work.

No, there was no U.S. investigation into Biden's son's company - there was a Ukranian one.... that Biden stopped. Was there a U.S. investigation into Trump, before the DNC solicited Ukraine's help in "digging up dirt" on him?

If the tables were turned, and it was Trump who stopped an investigation into his highly unqualified son's company where he was mysteriously hired and making millions, please don't tell me we wouldn't be hearing nothing but screaming from the left and from their presidential candidates.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

I don't know how else to tell this, but Ukraine, Biden and the last administration weaponized the intelligence community to go after Trump before and after he was elected and these efforts by President Trump are to get to the bottom of it.

There is actual corruption and our President is ensuring that other countries involved are complying. That's why he asked about Crowdstrike.

Mr. Joe Biden doesn't get a pass because he's running for President.

Democrats used the Mueller SC to influence 2018 midterms...OK. This whole fake whistleblower account, even if it were true, is not even close in political dirt that Democrats get away with.

You're going to learn just how corrupt your Democrats are here in about a couple of weeks.

---

You have been saying that for two years now.

---

I heard Russia rigged our election and Trump was in on it for over two years.

By the way, the topic of this thread? About 14 voters in the country care in the slightest. This is all theatrics and hand-wringing for the politi-nerds . . . but it's a nothing burger for the average working Joe American.

HuMcK said:

---

---

Here is U.S. Ambassador Gordon Sondland's text in response to the above Bill Taylor:

"Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."

Consider the quid pro quo talking point quashed.

The lead Diplomat to Ukraine says there was a quid pro quo arrangement, then a random underling says no there isn't and they shouldn't be talking about it on the record (classic evidence of intent to conceal). At the very least quid pro quo is an open question, certainly far from being quashed in any way.

Taylor is a career diplomat, and Sondland is a hotelier who donated $1m to Trump's campaign, so of course y'all side with the political donor over a career expert on Ukraine diplomacy...

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

---

Here is U.S. Ambassador Gordon Sondland's text in response to the above Bill Taylor:

"Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."

Consider the quid pro quo talking point quashed.

---

So we're supposed to take the "crystal clear" word of the most lying president in history over crystal clear evidence to the contrary?

That's just embarrassing. Why don't you do what other die-hard Trump supporters on this board have done: Admit that the rule of law means nothing to you as long as Trump remains in office, and that you're totally OK with him weaponiizing foreign aid against his political opponents if that helps him stay POTUS.

However, should a Democrat win, if you control Congress, you will investigate him or her, like you did Hillary Clinton, for years (I think it was 7) and huff and puff about the importance of democracy and national security--both of which you have proven you care nothing about thanks to this sorry incident.

You're fine with a rigged system as long as it's always rigged in your favor.

Shame on you.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

I don't know how else to tell this, but Ukraine, Biden and the last administration weaponized the intelligence community to go after Trump before and after he was elected and these efforts by President Trump are to get to the bottom of it.

There is actual corruption and our President is ensuring that other countries involved are complying. That's why he asked about Crowdstrike.

Mr. Joe Biden doesn't get a pass because he's running for President.

Democrats used the Mueller SC to influence 2018 midterms...OK. This whole fake whistleblower account, even if it were true, is not even close in political dirt that Democrats get away with.

You're going to learn just how corrupt your Democrats are here in about a couple of weeks.

---

You have been saying that for two years now.

---

I heard Russia rigged our election and Trump was in on it for over two years.

By the way, the topic of this thread? About 14 voters in the country care in the slightest. This is all theatrics and hand-wringing for the politi-nerds . . . but it's a nothing burger for the average working Joe American.

---

Trump's approval rating has gone down:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

I don't know how else to tell this, but Ukraine, Biden and the last administration weaponized the intelligence community to go after Trump before and after he was elected and these efforts by President Trump are to get to the bottom of it.

There is actual corruption and our President is ensuring that other countries involved are complying. That's why he asked about Crowdstrike.

Mr. Joe Biden doesn't get a pass because he's running for President.

Democrats used the Mueller SC to influence 2018 midterms...OK. This whole fake whistleblower account, even if it were true, is not even close in political dirt that Democrats get away with.

You're going to learn just how corrupt your Democrats are here in about a couple of weeks.

---

You have been saying that for two years now.

---

I heard Russia rigged our election and Trump was in on it for over two years.

By the way, the topic of this thread? About 14 voters in the country care in the slightest. This is all theatrics and hand-wringing for the politi-nerds . . . but it's a nothing burger for the average working Joe American.

---

Trump's approval rating has gone down:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

---

and polls are always right! Just ask Hillary.

Little bit louder for the fools in the back...

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.

---

This is not a plausible interpretation of campaign finance law. If it were, then a president accepting the surrender of a military enemy would be a criminal. Something like V-J Day would be cause for scandal instead of celebration.

It might be tempting to believe the president made foreign policy decisions based on what was best for him. The problem is that no such thing ever happened. At the very worst, he made an oblique threat to do so - and that's if you ignore everything Zelensky says and assume Biden was the only reason for the phone call.

The whistle blower is most likely Bill Taylor:

https://ua.usembassy.gov/embassy/kyiv/ambassador/

and he did it to save his own ass:

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08KYIV2111_a.html

Jinx 2 said:

---

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.

---

How did Trump compromise national security?

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

This is not a plausible interpretation of campaign finance law. If it were, then a president accepting the surrender of a military enemy would be a criminal. Something like V-J Day would be cause for scandal instead of celebration.

It might be tempting to believe the president made foreign policy decisions based on what was best for him. The problem is that no such thing ever happened. At the very worst, he made an oblique threat to do so - and that's if you ignore everything Zelensky says and assume Biden was the only reason for the phone call.

---

When he said people would ignore him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, I really did not think that would include you.

Accepting the surrender of a military enemy is a benefit to the American people; the benefit to the politician is incidental. Trump's motivation in urging Ukraine to investigate "corruption" in its country is transparently personal, the benefit to the American people (if any) is incidental. The two things are not even in the same universe and the comparison is absurd.

As to the statutory interpretation, the question is simple: did the President solicit a thing of value (to his campaign) from a foreign national? There may be fact questions as to whether his statements were solicitations or whether the proposed investigation would be a thing of value. But the existence of fact questions does not undermine my reading of the statute.

I assume that you would at least agree that if Trump asked for that investigation for the sole purpose of helping his campaign it would be a violation of campaign finance law. In other words, imagine the transcript read:

"Hey, President Z. I need a favor. Will you start an investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden? I don't really think there is anything there, but it will cause my leading opponent all sorts of issues. I know it is going to cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars, but I asking this as a personal request."

Please tell me you think that qualifies as prosceutable under the statute.

If so, you are not disagreeing with the my statutory interpretation; you are saying there is insufficient evidence to support a prosecution under the statute.

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

This is not a plausible interpretation of campaign finance law. If it were, then a president accepting the surrender of a military enemy would be a criminal. Something like V-J Day would be cause for scandal instead of celebration.

It might be tempting to believe the president made foreign policy decisions based on what was best for him. The problem is that no such thing ever happened. At the very worst, he made an oblique threat to do so - and that's if you ignore everything Zelensky says and assume Biden was the only reason for the phone call.

---

When he said people would ignore him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, I really did not think that would include you.

Accepting the surrender of a military enemy is a benefit to the American people; the benefit to the politician is incidental. Trump's motivation in urging Ukraine to investigate "corruption" in its country is transparently personal, the benefit to the American people (if any) is incidental. The two things are not even in the same universe and the comparison is absurd.

As to the statutory interpretation, the question is simple: did the President solicit a thing of value (to his campaign) from a foreign national? There may be fact questions as to whether his statements were solicitations or whether the proposed investigation would be a thing of value. But the existence of fact questions does not undermine my reading of the statute.

I assume that you would at least agree that if Trump asked for that investigation for the sole purpose of helping his campaign it would be a violation of campaign finance law. In other words, imagine the transcript read:

"Hey, President Z. I need a favor. Will you start an investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden? I don't really think there is anything there, but it will cause my leading opponent all sorts of issues. I know it is going to cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars, but I asking this as a personal request."

Please tell me you think that qualifies as prosceutable under the statute.

If so, you are not disagreeing with the my statutory interpretation; you are saying there is insufficient evidence to support a prosecution under the statute.

---

I do not think it would qualify as a violation of the statute. But if you're going to build a case on a such a literal reading of the law, you can't very well turn around and say everything is excused if the benefit is incidental. The statute doesn't say anything like that. There is also a public benefit in investigating the origins of Russiagate.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

I don't know how else to tell this, but Ukraine, Biden and the last administration weaponized the intelligence community to go after Trump before and after he was elected and these efforts by President Trump are to get to the bottom of it.

There is actual corruption and our President is ensuring that other countries involved are complying. That's why he asked about Crowdstrike.

Mr. Joe Biden doesn't get a pass because he's running for President.

Democrats used the Mueller SC to influence 2018 midterms...OK. This whole fake whistleblower account, even if it were true, is not even close in political dirt that Democrats get away with.

You're going to learn just how corrupt your Democrats are here in about a couple of weeks.

---

You have been saying that for two years now.

---

I heard Russia rigged our election and Trump was in on it for over two years.

By the way, the topic of this thread? About 14 voters in the country care in the slightest. This is all theatrics and hand-wringing for the politi-nerds . . . but it's a nothing burger for the average working Joe American.

---

I believe you're right. Talking to people they don't know seem to know where one "controversy" ends and the next one begins.

Russia.. Ukraine..what?

I think the dems had one bullet in the chamber with Mueller, which ended up so far off target they nearly made Donald freakin Trump look like the victim. And now all talk since then is just noise and ,frankly, exhausting.

There's so much bad faith in the GOP these days, things like this just get lost in the chaos.

Sounds like Giuliani and his shady friends were acting at the direction of Ukrainian (and Russian mob connected...) billionaire Dmitry Firtash (who is on house arrest in Vienna, where Giuliani's friends were headed when they got arrested, and is legally repped by Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing, what a coincidence). Start getting familiar with that name Trump fans, it's going to be important going forward.

The Republican focus on process and minutiae is because the actual testimony is pretty damning.

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

---

So a first hand witness to the call shouldn't be trusted because he wasn't ranked high enough? I have to say, that is an incredibly weak-ass spin, even for your usual efforts. A witness who, btw, says that "transcript" is incomplete and was deliberately scrubbed of pertinent information. I.e. a clear cut attempt at a Nixon-style cover-up.

You didn't read a transcript of the call, you read a memorandum summary released by a man who uses flagrant lying as a deliberate strategy (which was still damning even if you refuse to admit it). Why y'all continue to eat the sht he feeds you, I will never understand. Especially now after someone else who was on the call says the transcript is not correct. Nevermind all of the extraneous evidence and testimony outside of the alleged "transcript".

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

---

So a first hand witness to the call shouldn't be trusted because he wasn't ranked high enough? I have to say, that is an incredibly weak-ass spin, even for your usual efforts. A witness who, btw, says that "transcript" is incomplete and was deliberately scrubbed of pertinent information. I.e. a clear cut attempt at a Nixon-style cover-up.

You didn't read a transcript of the call, you read a memorandum summary released by a man who uses flagrant lying as a deliberate strategy (which was still damning even if you refuse to admit it). Why y'all continue to eat the sht he feeds you, I will never understand. Especially now after someone else who was on the call says the transcript is not correct. Nevermind all of the extraneous evidence and testimony outside of the alleged "transcript".

---

If you were nearly as bright as you think you are, you'd be able to grasp the simple truth that whatever sht Trump puts out is to counter the sht of the left. You and your kind are the cause. Trump is the effect. Whatever he is doing is as nothing compared to the corruption of the swamp and the America-destroying platform of the left. End of story.

Jinx 2 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

---

Here is U.S. Ambassador Gordon Sondland's text in response to the above Bill Taylor:

"Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."

Consider the quid pro quo talking point quashed.

---

So we're supposed to take the "crystal clear" word of the most lying president in history over crystal clear evidence to the contrary?

That's just embarrassing. Why don't you do what other die-hard Trump supporters on this board have done: Admit that the rule of law means nothing to you as long as Trump remains in office, and that you're totally OK with him weaponiizing foreign aid against his political opponents if that helps him stay POTUS.

However, should a Democrat win, if you control Congress, you will investigate him or her, like you did Hillary Clinton, for years (I think it was 7) and huff and puff about the importance of democracy and national security--both of which you have proven you care nothing about thanks to this sorry incident.

You're fine with a rigged system as long as it's always rigged in your favor.

Shame on you.

---

What is your evidence that he is the most lying president in history? Are you considering actually lies or exaggerations or even after clarification, are you still saying lies?

Also, I asked and asked but you seem to dodge the question so I'll put it in all caps, 'WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY RULE OF LAW?

How did he weaponize aid?

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

What updates? We've known it was a summary from day one.

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

---

So a first hand witness to the call shouldn't be trusted because he wasn't ranked high enough? I have to say, that is an incredibly weak-ass spin, even for your usual efforts. A witness who, btw, says that "transcript" is incomplete and was deliberately scrubbed of pertinent information. I.e. a clear cut attempt at a Nixon-style cover-up.

You didn't read a transcript of the call, you read a memorandum summary released by a man who uses flagrant lying as a deliberate strategy (which was still damning even if you refuse to admit it). Why y'all continue to eat the sht he feeds you, I will never understand. Especially now after someone else who was on the call says the transcript is not correct. Nevermind all of the extraneous evidence and testimony outside of the alleged "transcript".

---

Since--and thanks to--Watergate, the White House goes to enormous lengths not to tape phone conversations. There is a team of intelligence offices each assigned separate tasks of repeating the words of each person on the phone conversation, the resulting transcript is compiled, looked over, signed off by the officer;... so now we have a discrepancy between what the WH released and what someone listening in on the call remembers of the call. It might end there except for one thing --one thing that is probably keeping folks up at night in the WH, and one thing that will explain why WE DO NOT ASK FOREIGN NATIONS TO GET DIRT ON OUR OPPONENTS. Why is this? There were other people on the call. Now, we are told there is no tape of the conversation. But do you fully believe that the Ukrainian Govt. went to the enormous lengths we do not to record the conversation? How much do you want to bet they have a tape? So, over the past few days/weeks, Ukrainians have been wondering, Trump held up $400mm for dirt on Biden, how much does he pay us for the tape?

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

---

So a first hand witness to the call shouldn't be trusted because he wasn't ranked high enough? I have to say, that is an incredibly weak-ass spin, even for your usual efforts. A witness who, btw, says that "transcript" is incomplete and was deliberately scrubbed of pertinent information. I.e. a clear cut attempt at a Nixon-style cover-up.

You didn't read a transcript of the call, you read a memorandum summary released by a man who uses flagrant lying as a deliberate strategy (which was still damning even if you refuse to admit it). Why y'all continue to eat the sht he feeds you, I will never understand. Especially now after someone else who was on the call says the transcript is not correct. Nevermind all of the extraneous evidence and testimony outside of the alleged "transcript".

---

Since--and thanks to--Watergate, the White House goes to enormous lengths not to tape phone conversations. There is a team of intelligence offices each assigned separate tasks of repeating the words of each person on the phone conversation, the resulting transcript is compiled, looked over, signed off by the officer;... so now we have a discrepancy between what the WH released and what someone listening in on the call remembers of the call. It might end there except for one thing --one thing that is probably keeping folks up at night in the WH, and one thing that will explain why WE DO NOT ASK FOREIGN NATIONS TO GET DIRT ON OUR OPPONENTS. Why is this? There were other people on the call. Now, we are told there is no tape of the conversation. But do you fully believe that the Ukrainian Govt. went to the enormous lengths we do not to record the conversation? How much do you want to bet they have a tape? So, over the past few days/weeks, Ukrainians have been wondering, Trump held up $400mm for dirt on Biden, how much does he pay us for the tape?

---

You're missing the point. He didn't do that.