America under President Trump

[OftenWrong]

I’m concerned about a lot of things. Doesn’t mean it’s a crime.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Boges said:

This wasn't a courtroom. 

It doesn't have lower standards. No one is getting impeached or jailed because of "A guy told me that so and so did this....".

You should already be aware of basic things like this Boges. I shouldn't have to be explaining it to you.

"But, but, but the Dems say that this is credible!!!!!"

The Dems said that Dr Ford and Hillary's foreign agents were credible. Yet here we are, three years into a witch hunt and there's still no evidence that any spells were cast. They didn't even find any eye of newt or hair of frog yet. But, you should probably draw a pentagram around your bed just to be on the safe side Boges.

 

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I’m concerned about a lot of things. Doesn’t mean it’s a crime.

This post was a crime, and if I had my bad touch doll I could show you exactly where it hurt me. 

[Rue]

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 6:14 PM, WestCanMan said:

He's not an immoral liar. The immoral liars are Schiff, Pelosi, etc. 

After two years of Pelosi and Schiff saying that it there was more and more evidence pouring in that Trump colluded with Russia they still had zero. Trump told the truth for two years, Schiff and Pelosi lied that whole time. Who are the actual liars in that scenario Rue? _______________________

Schiff and Pelosi said that we had to believe Dr Ford's testimony but she couldn't name a place or a date and the 4 witnesses that she named said that they didn't witness anything like that. Who lied Rue? _______________

You saw Schiff's interpretation of Trump's phone call transcripts, it was a complete fabrication. To stand there in front of a camera and fabricate a serious accusation like that is the most serious form of lying possible. Even the sleazy Dems had to call that one out, and they're all lower than crap on a snake's belly. Once again, who lied? ___________________

Who lied? Ok Wes you asked:

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

https://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/

https://www.nrdc.org/trump-lies

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/opinions/trumps-lies-on-syria-were-jaw-dropping-ghitis/index.html

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump-has-told-13-435-while-in-office-wapo-71560773873

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/12/20961764/trump-ivanka-created-14-million-jobs-whopper 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

When has  he NOT lied Wes?

I did READ Shiff's interpretation of the transcripts and I have read the transcripts. Unlike you I am not pro Trump with partisan pro Trump views so I think it is outrageous he has mixed personal election interests concerning Biden with US foreign interests and not only liked the two BUT ADMIITTED he linked the two as contingent on one another and he would do it again.

We are way past denial on what he did with Ukraine. Now shit is coming out about Erdogan and Putin. Did you really think he could do what he did and this would never come back on him. I mean he believes he is immortal but why do you?

He's not immporal?

https://interfaithallianceco.org/blog/2018/8/21/the-real-moral-breakdown-of-donald-trump-and-the-rest-of-us-too

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/21/donald-trump-impeachment-white-house-2020

https://time.com/5616623/dalai-lama-president-donald-trump-lack-moral-principle/

Of course he is immoral.

[godzilla]

notice that Rs don't argue the facts of the case! maybe you should give them a call and straighten them out! they don't even argue that Trump was attempting to shank Ukraine.

[WestCanMan]

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

Who lied? Ok Wes you asked:

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

https://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/

https://www.nrdc.org/trump-lies

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/opinions/trumps-lies-on-syria-were-jaw-dropping-ghitis/index.html

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump-has-told-13-435-while-in-office-wapo-71560773873

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/12/20961764/trump-ivanka-created-14-million-jobs-whopper 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

When has  he NOT lied Wes?

I did READ Shiff's interpretation of the transcripts and I have read the transcripts. Unlike you I am not pro Trump with partisan pro Trump views so I think it is outrageous he has mixed personal election interests concerning Biden with US foreign interests and not only liked the two BUT ADMIITTED he linked the two as contingent on one another and he would do it again.

We are way past denial on what he did with Ukraine. Now shit is coming out about Erdogan and Putin. Did you really think he could do what he did and this would never come back on him. I mean he believes he is immortal but why do you?

He's not immporal?

https://interfaithallianceco.org/blog/2018/8/21/the-real-moral-breakdown-of-donald-trump-and-the-rest-of-us-too

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/21/donald-trump-impeachment-white-house-2020

https://time.com/5616623/dalai-lama-president-donald-trump-lack-moral-principle/

Of course he is immoral.

FFS Rue, you're quoting CNN and NYT which did nothing but lie and spin for the last 3 years and you know it. You might as well paste a link to a random internet poster.

Schiff's interpretation was a farce even by Dem standards and all of those "news outlets" thatyou just quoted just keep letting Biden say "It's already known that I did nothing inappropriate - you need to focus on Trump!"

His son got hired to the board of the most corrupt corporation in the Ukraine for $50K/month while he was over there "fighting corruption" and then when the top prosecutor there raided the home of Burisma's chair Joe Biden went scorched earth with a blatant quid pro quo to get rid of him "and replaced him with a guy that was solid". It's beyond stupid that you guys are trying to connect the dots via hearsay to get Trump when Biden has a trail of footsteps, his DNA is on everything, he offered up a video confession and he was caught lying about material facts of the matter like what he knew and who he knew and when he knew it and when certain important events occurred. 

[Boges]

26 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It doesn't have lower standards. No one is getting impeached or jailed because of "A guy told me that so and so did this....".

You should already be aware of basic things like this Boges. I shouldn't have to be explaining it to you.

"But, but, but the Dems say that this is credible!!!!!"

The Dems said that Dr Ford and Hillary's foreign agents were credible. Yet here we are, three years into a witch hunt and there's still no evidence that any spells were cast. They didn't even find any eye of newt or hair of frog yet. But, you should probably draw a pentagram around your bed just to be on the safe side Boges.

You may have a case if yesterday was all the testimony we would be receiving.

BTW if someone who did have first hand knowledge of Trump directing money to be held in exchange of an investigation into the Biden's and Crowdstrike and testified to it. . . would you even believe it? 

[Boges]

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

FFS Rue, you're quoting CNN and NYT which did nothing but lie and spin for the last 3 years and you know it. You might as well paste a link to a random internet poster.

Schiff's interpretation was a farce even by Dem standards and all of those "news outlets" thatyou just quoted just keep letting Biden say "It's already known that I did nothing inappropriate - you need to focus on Trump!"

His son got hired to the board of the most corrupt corporation in the Ukraine for $50K/month while he was over there "fighting corruption" and then when the top prosecutor there raided the home of Burisma's chair Joe Biden went scorched earth with a blatant quid pro quo to get rid of him "and replaced him with a guy that was solid". It's beyond stupid that you guys are trying to connect the dots via hearsay to get Trump when Biden has a trail of footsteps, his DNA is on everything, he offered up a video confession and he was caught lying about material facts of the matter like what he knew and who he knew and when he knew it and when certain important events occurred. 

I see other sources in Member Rue's citations. Vox, Politifact the Guardian. 

Perhaps the only source you'll believe is Fox News (Except their polls that say Trump is unpopular) and Breibart. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Boges

[WestCanMan]

26 minutes ago, Boges said:

You may have a case if yesterday was all the testimony we would be receiving.

BTW if someone who did have first hand knowledge of Trump directing money to be held in exchange of an investigation into the Biden's and Crowdstrike and testified to it. . . would you even believe it? 

We all saw Dr Ford go in front of Congress and lie her face off, so no I wouldn't just believe the first-hand account of one person. If two people like Schiff, Pelosi, Comey etc swear on a stack of bibles that they heard Trump say something I obviously wouldn't care. They've lied through this whole process and they have no more credibility than a maggot.

We all saw Biden admit to a quid pro quo, and Dems and their media just instantly brush it aside as if his un-coerced video testimony is meaningless. He was also caught on video blatantly lying about whether he even knew his son worked for Burisma. The Dems were all caught saying that "the firing happened well after the Burisma investigation ended" but now we all know that's a lie too. So, considering that we all know that Burisma is like a gun that's belching smoke up into the stratosphere and the Dems pretend not to be able to see it, why the hell would I try to focus on their trail of hearsay cookie crumbs? How stupid do you have to be to believe them when Joe Biden's only defence is "don't look at me, look at Trump"?

 

[Boges]

40 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

We all saw Dr Ford go in front of Congress and lie her face off, so no I wouldn't just believe the first-hand account of one person. If two people like Schiff, Pelosi, Comey etc swear on a stack of bibles that they heard Trump say something I obviously wouldn't care. They've lied through this whole process and they have no more credibility than a maggot.

We all saw Biden admit to a quid pro quo, and Dems and their media just instantly brush it aside as if his un-coerced video testimony is meaningless. He was also caught on video blatantly lying about whether he even knew his son worked for Burisma. The Dems were all caught saying that "the firing happened well after the Burisma investigation ended" but now we all know that's a lie too. So, considering that we all know that Burisma is like a gun that's belching smoke up into the stratosphere and the Dems pretend not to be able to see it, why the hell would I try to focus on their trail of hearsay cookie crumbs? How stupid do you have to be to believe them when Joe Biden's only defence is "don't look at me, look at Trump"?

 

So who cares about your opinion regarding hearsay. Even if someone saw the 45 direct someone to withhold the money in exchange for dirt on the Bidens, you wouldn't believe it. 

 

[WestCanMan]

29 minutes ago, Boges said:

I see other sources in Member Rue's citations. Vox, Politifact the Guardian. 

Perhaps the only source you'll believe is Fox News (Except their polls that say Trump is unpopular) and Breibart. 

I do believe Fox News more than those guys. Of course I do. I've watched them be right about the main storylines and side-stories through every major issue since 2014 and I haven't caught them in any direct lies or any major mistakes or omissions. They present the stories when they come out but they don't exaggerate what they know to be true about them.

This has to be the 200th time that I've heard or seen someone impugn the quality of reporting at Fox but no one has ever told me about "the time they caught Fox lying".

I've cited Washpo, the NYT, CNN, Snopes, ABC lying several times each (the fake coverage of the Turkish attacks on the Kurds was such a bold attempt at disinformation that I have to admit to laughing about it. It reminds me of the scam where someone rents out a house and then advertises it for cheap rent, takes 20 damage deposits & 1st months rent, and then takes off). None of you Fox-haters can refute any of it. It's also blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain that their coverage of Russian collusion, Dr Ford, Biden, etc was a complete farce and you can't deny that either.

What the hell are you doing listening to the exact same people who you know lied to you yesterday? You keep on thinking that they'll start telling the truth tomorrow. When's tomorrow? It's several years late for you now Boges. It seems like this tomorrow that you dream of isn't coming any time soon. 

You can quote what you saw on CNN all day to me, and if the day ever comes that they're right about something you can't fault me for not believing them. 

[WestCanMan]

22 minutes ago, Boges said:

So who cares about your opinion regarding hearsay. Even if someone saw the 45 direct someone to withhold the money in exchange for dirt on the Bidens, you wouldn't believe it. 

 

My opinion on hearsay is the exact opinion that every court of law in the US and the Commonwealth all shares - hearsay evidence is not admissible. Period. Don't blame me, blame the combined wisdom of hundreds of thousands of judges over the past 3 centuries. You can take the position that we're all wrong and you and Adam Schiff are right fo you want. I know that's how you roll.

My opinion on the credibility of Dem-provided witnesses is backed by dozens of examples of previous witnesses and even FBI officials who have been caught lying about Trump, the collusion investigation and his associates over the past 3 years. If ten percent of their witnesses were telling the truth I'd give their testimony 10% credibility. They're a bit below ten percent. Please forgive me for not believing the testimony of the 73rd witness that they provide if they accidentally tell the truth. 

 

When you were a kid, and your parents read you the story about the boy who cried wolf, did they let him do that to them 600 times before they left him to get eaten? I'm just trying to figure out where you learned to place your trust.

[Boges]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

My opinion on hearsay is the exact opinion that every court of law in the US and the Commonwealth all shares - hearsay evidence is not admissible. Period. Don't blame me, blame the combined wisdom of hundreds of thousands of judges over the past 3 centuries. You can take the position that we're all wrong and you and Adam Schiff are right fo you want. I know that's how you roll.

My opinion on the credibility of Dem-provided witnesses is backed by dozens of examples of previous witnesses and even FBI officials who have been caught lying about Trump, the collusion investigation and his associates over the past 3 years. If ten percent of their witnesses were telling the truth I'd give their testimony 10% credibility. They're a bit below ten percent. Please forgive me for not believing the testimony of the 73rd witness that they provide if they accidentally tell the truth. 

 

When you were a kid, and your parents read you the story about the boy who cried wolf, did they let him do that to them 600 times before they left him to get eaten? I'm just trying to figure out where you learned to place your trust.

You have no evidence they are lying. It's just a partisan argument. If the Dems want them to testify, they must be corrupt. 

Keep Flailing. 

[Cannucklehead]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/14/us/donald-trump-jr-florida-impeachment/index.html

 

Impeachment 2.0!  

 

Drain the swamp!  

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

You have no evidence they are lying. It's just a partisan argument. If the Dems want them to testify, they must be corrupt. 

Keep Flailing. 

It doesn't matter what they're saying if they didn't hear it first hand. 

The truth already had one chance to be interpreted incorrectly by the first person when they heard it, and then it was filtered through the bias of that person before the second person got a chance to hear it, so there are two reasons why it could be inaccurate at that point.

When you hear a second-hand account it has been interpreted twice and filtered through two possible sets of bias. There's almost no chance to get an accurate picture of what happened under those circumstances, and this whole process relies on proving the exact tone and intent of Trump's message because the words themselves don't constitute a crime of any sort. 

I'm not flailing. I've given up on your ability to learn anything that you don't see on CNN.

Edited November 14, 2019 by WestCanMan

[Rue]

27 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It doesn't matter what they're saying if they didn't hear it first hand. 

 

Bullshit if course the transcripts speak for themselves. You might want to read them. I have and so has everyone else who thinks Trump has engaged in a conflict of interest,. My summary of the transcripts is the same as with this source:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29364473/ukraine-texts-quid-pro-quo-trump/

I have provided the relevant summarization and deleted repeat analysis. Read the transcripts.

More to the point TRUMP ADMITTED NOT ONCE BUT THREE TIMES he linked aid to investigating Biden. Why would you pretend it is heresay when Trump has already admitted it?

"The texts released last night by the chairs of the House Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs Committees are absolutely damning. You should read the whole thing. There appear to be multiple instances of the same quid pro quo Trump and his allies hung their hats on there not being, and Sondland's at the heart of all of it. .....

.... it appears the initial quid pro quo did not have to do with the military aid. The first round of strongman leveraging had to do with Zelensky's desire to get a White House meeting with the American president. ..... That was the subtext of the infamous July 25 call: Zelensky was trying to get a bilateral meeting, but his aides had been briefed beforehand that in order to get one, he'd need to promise an investigation into 2016 that would dispute the established fact that Russia interfered. At least, that's what Volker texted Zelensky's aide beforehand:

In which Volker informs Zelensky’s aid that a Zelensky visit to Washington is predicated on convincing Trump that he’ll “get to the bottom of what happened” in 2016. pic.twitter.com/mQk62rlOvk

Here is a quid pro quo: if you promise an investigation that will be politically useful to the president, the president will grant you the meeting you need. One worrying thing is that Trump seems increasingly convinced Ukraine actually was involved in 2016 interference, a conspiracy theory from the right-wing fever swamp that, as a champion bullshitter, he may have convinced himself of while pushing it.

Later in the text threads, we see Zelensky had basically agreed to announce the investigations in exchange for confirmed dates for a Washington trip. As Chris Hayes and others pointed out on Twitter, it appears this scheme was going to work until a whistleblower blew it open. (Although The New York Times seems dead-set on giving Trump the headlines he wants, even today, with full knowledge of the scheme. Perhaps they would say the news is the news.) As August came around, Trump's people solidified the message they wanted from Ukraine: investigations into both 2016 and Burisma, the gas company on whose board Hunter Biden once sat. It would quickly become about The Bidens—a successful ratfucking operation. But in late August, Zelensky's aide also became aware of the withheld military assistance:

Zelensky aid texts Volker our @politico story breaking the news that Ukraine military aide was being withheld at Trump’s request

At this point, a career diplomat named Bill Taylor—currently the chief of mission in Kiev—entered the plot and seemed determined to make an official record of the shady shit going on. Trump had canceled a planned meeting with Zelensky in Warsaw, Poland, and the aid was still withheld. Taylor decided to put something—which may have been discussed in a phone call—down in writing.

Ambassador Taylor, Sept 1: “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?

Note Sondland's response: "Call me." He doesn't want this in writing because he knows it's bad and probably illegal. He doesn't want a record, but it appears Taylor does. On September 8, they're discussing an "interview" the Ukrainians will need to give in order to secure the meeting and the military aid, and Taylor again goes on-record: "The nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)" He couldn't be more clear.

......

Bill Taylor: "The nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)
Bill Taylor: "The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key."

Throughout, Taylor's only goal was to secure the aid for Ukraine. (Taylor may have other motives involved, but the bare fact is that Russia has orchestrated a shadow invasion of Eastern Ukraine after already annexing Crimea.) When Sondland expresses zero certainty the aid will be delivered even if the Ukrainians do what they've been hammered into doing, Taylor again puts it explicitly on the record: "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

...Not only is Taylor laying out the quid pro quo, he makes it clear that this has been extensively discussed between Trump's people on phone calls we can't see.

This thing certainly is not done, but the evidence is now substantial that there was a quid pro quo with two elements on each side. Trump wanted investigations into  2016 to minimize the Russians' role, and into the Bidens to damage the elder's 2020 campaign. Zelensky wanted a meeting with Trump and for the military aid to be delivered. For Zelensky to get those things, it was made clear by Trump's envoys that he would need to deliver the things Trump wanted for his personal gain."

 

[Rue]

6 hours ago, godzilla said:

notice that Rs don't argue the facts of the case! maybe you should give them a call and straighten them out! they don't even argue that Trump was attempting to shank Ukraine.

He was commenting on  my stating Trump was an immoral liar. That is what I answered. Notice I did answer when it was called for. Of course Trump was shanking Ukraine he admitted he was three times and the transcripts show he did. +

You want facts then stop denying the facts.

Trump stated and has admitted stating and I quote:  “I would like you to do us a favor, though” ...... what about those words do you not understand? What about him asking the Ukraine leader to  work with Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and the US attorney general, William Barr, to look into unsubstantiated allegations that Biden, the former vice-president, helped remove a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son, Hunter, who was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, do you not understand? Trump admitted he asked for this. He stated and I again quote:  “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it.”

Why was the US President who is IN FACT running against Joe Biden asking any foreign leader to investigate his political opponent? What do you not get about that being an abuse of power and using POTUS for a partisan purpose? What do you not get about any investigation of anyone having to come from someone neutral not someone with a vested partisan interest that conflicts with  US foreign policy interests?

Trump's defence is not that he did not ask for an investigation, its that he didn't threaten or pressure the Ukraine President. He didn't have to threaten or pressure. The moment he said what he did the message was obvious and that is precisely why the Ukraine President while saying he did not feel he was pressured DID MOST CERTAINLY SAy to reporters:  “I think you read everything. I think you read text. I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be involved to democratic, open elections of USA. No.”

He would not have said what he did if he did not feel what he was being asked stepped into election issues. He doesn't have to feel anything. The perception of him getting involved in partisan elections was sufficient for him to say the above and that is the test not his feelings. This request by Trump speaks for itself. Its not heresay its admitted. It speaks for itself.

It was also reconfirmed by Trump:

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2019/09/watch-trump-admits-he-talked-to-ukraine-president-about-joe-biden-and-his-son/

Trump now is trying to say any withholding of Ukrainian funds the day before the phone call to discuss a Biden investigation was coincidental only. So then why did his Chief of Staff say otherewise?

..And there it was, practically out of the blue, at a press conference, Donald Trump’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, by and large admitted that the president held back military aid to force Ukraine to investigate the business dealings of Hunter Biden. Asked whether the administration had told the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, that funding would not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well, Mulvaney said: “We do – we do that all the time with foreign policy.”

source:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/18/mulvaney-quid-pro-quo-ukraine

As well these people who feel Trump mixed personal interests with foreign policy interests are all wrong:

"WASHINGTON – A string of U.S. diplomats and national-security officials mapped out during the last two weeks for the House impeachment inquiry how President Donald Trump's pressure on Ukraine to investigate his political rival began months earlier than a key July 25 call and raised alarms across the government.

The U.S. ambassador to Europe voiced disappointment after learning May 23 that the president delegated Ukraine policy to his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, rather than rely on professionals at the State Department.

Trump’s top diplomat in Ukraine, who caught wind of Giuliani’s back-channel effort, said that trading military aid to Ukraine for an investigation of corruption would be “crazy.”

And John Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser, called Giuliani a “hand grenade” that would blow up routine diplomatic efforts, according to a former National Security Council official."

source:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/21/impeachment-witnesses-describe-how-president-trump-dealt-ukraine/4022832002/

As for Trump now we know the following as well:

"Former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko admitted to discussing financial investments with President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani in 2017."

source: https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/ex-president-of-ukraine-admits-to-discussing-investments-with-rudy-giuliani-report/

This is the same Giuliani Trump asked to take over all issues dealing with Ukraine circumventing the US Ambassador to Ukraine and State Department.

Even Fox's legal analyst  Judge Andrew Napolitano  has explained that President Donald Trump may have  admitted to a crime on camera and that crime is an impeachable one.

see :https://www.rawstory.com/2019/09/fox-news-legal-analyst-trump-admitted-to-a-crime-and-it-absolutely-is-an-impeachable-offense/

Trying to claim the witholding of funds was coincidental is besides the point and is not the point. Raising the Biden issue for ANY reason is the actual impeachable issue. Just the bringing in of a clearly conflicted personal partisan issue connected to Ukraine's relationship and mixing Guliani, Trump's personal lawyer whose role is to  get him re-elected at all costs with US foreign policy is the issue.

You can't mix the two. Conflict of interest is about the appearance of  the possibility of conflict of interest. Trump supporters have grown so complacent to his inability to separate the needs of the state from his own personal interests is very apparent on this thread. They think anything Trump does is automatically in the best interests of the US simply because he is Presidemt. That is not how it works. The President is not above the law or immune from the law. He can be and most certainly is accountable to congress for his behaviour if it is in conflict which he admits to making. If Trump truly felt Biden was a criminal and his son was a criminal then NOT Trump but a neutral adviser far removed from Trump or his partisan campaigners should be the one to have investigated how that impacts on US foreign policy interests not Trump and to have to even explain that to the Trump groupies on this board is sad. They seem to have no problem understanding Trudeau's conflict of interest, but when it comes to Trump, we get this fantasy land denial.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Rue

[Rue]

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

FFS Rue, you're quoting CNN and NYT which did nothing but lie and spin for the last 3 years and you know it. You might as well paste a link to a random internet poster.

Schiff's interpretation was a farce even by Dem standards and all of those "news outlets" thatyou just quoted just keep letting Biden say "It's already known that I did nothing inappropriate - you need to focus on Trump!"

His 

Are you saying the lies don't exist because they were repeated by CNN and NYT among many media outlets? That automatically makes the fact he is a serial pathological liar go poof? Its called fact check. Its public record. You claimed Trump does not lie then when you are provided the blatant overhwhelming fact check he does you try claim since CNN among others repeated the fact checks on his lies they don't exist?  Get friggin real.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

He was commenting on  my stating Trump was an immoral liar. That is what I answered. Notice I did answer when it was called for. Of course Trump was shanking Ukraine he admitted he was three times and the transcripts show he did. 

 

Good for Trump...Obama "shanked" The Ukraine too.  So what ?

America doesn't give military aid away for nothing.  

[godzilla]

well, they got aide in 2016, 2017 and 2018... without restrictions. without anything about corruption. in fact, Trump has never requested another country address corruption. but suddenly, with an election looming. corruption! specifically, Bidens and 2016 election corruption! how stupid do you most people are?

more importantly, those critical of Trump get the new defence of R... that there is no defence. everyone does it. Trump got caught. move on. nothing to see here. get over it! they got the aide.

so why doesn't Trump just admit to it and save everybody a bunch of trouble?

Edited November 15, 2019 by godzilla

[bush_cheney2004]

Just because Joe Biden is a presidential candidate does not mean he is immune from investigation for riding dirty with his son.   On top of that, Biden and Obama did nothing about the oh so bad Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.   

Trump is president, which means he gets to do all the things that previous presidents have done.  Voters will decide his fate.

[Rue]

37 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Good for Trump...Obama "shanked" The Ukraine too.  So what ?

America doesn't give military aid away for nothing.  

Good for Trump using POTUS for personal interests and not the benefit of the US? Yah tell me again how you are not a blind patisan groupie of Trump and how you did not elect him and are neutral in your analysis.

[Cannucklehead]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Just because Joe Biden is a presidential candidate does not mean he is immune from investigation for riding dirty with his son.   On top of that, Biden and Obama did nothing about the oh so bad Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.   

Trump is president, which means he gets to do all the things that previous presidents have done.  Voters will decide his fate.

The evidence to russian interference was inconclusive and did not implicate Biden or Obama anyway.  

Trump may be president, but he is not a king or emperor.  Unless they make u.s. a dictatorship he still has to follow ethics, even if it is too difficult for him, being essentially morally bankrupt.  

[godzilla]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Just because Joe Biden is a presidential candidate does not mean he is immune from investigation for riding dirty with his son.   On top of that, Biden and Obama did nothing about the oh so bad Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.   

Trump is president, which means he gets to do all the things that previous presidents have done.  Voters will decide his fate.

great. as a Trump supporter then I hope you are contacting the white house and urging Trump to fess up. cause, he seems a little hesitant. hahaha! 

[Rue]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Just because Joe Biden is a presidential candidate does not mean he is immune from investigation for riding dirty with his son.   On top of that, Biden and Obama did nothing about the oh so bad Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.   

Trump is president, which means he gets to do all the things that previous presidents have done.  Voters will decide his fate.

You again miss the point. No one has argued Biden is immune from investigation. No one. What we have argued is that the President because he is running against him as a direct personal conflict of interest in involving himself in any investigation of Biden directly or indirectly and no, no US President is allowed to use the powers of their Presidency to pressure foreign officials to investigate his political opponents and it has never been done. Not only that Trump has openly admitted he asked not just Ukraine but China to investigate Trump. He not only asks foreign leaders to engage in investigating his political opponents  but said openly he sees nothing wrong with that. Well you and he may find that kind of abuse of power and confloict of interest acceptable but one would hope Americans expect more.