• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican senator shocked at Mitch's attitude regarding the impeachment trial

Cardinal said:
That people are still depending on Murkowski to have integrity absolute blows my mind. What we have here is material for a psychological study in why women keep going back to their physically abusive boyfriends.
Click to expand...
My hunch is that the Republicans will stick together in not calling the WH aides, with perhaps one or two being allowed to defect to keep their hands clean.

I think that the House should simply recall Taylor, Sondland, Hill, and Hale. They can be even more compelling than their last testimony, because it will just be the Trump's ass clown lawyers, and the House managers, without any GOP congressmen allowed to make any spectacles.
 
GreatNews2night said:
I would love to see these sycophants losing their seats, and the Senate returning to the Democrats.

As for the emoluments, I don't know. I can't really agree. Can you imagine the complexities involved in truly and meaningfully divesting from a multi-billion dollar corporation with interests in dozens of countries? It's too complex, and would be on paper only anyway, because his kids would continue to manage it and he'd resume after leaving office; what would that change anyway? If he sold the corporation to his sons and his daughter for a symbolic $1, would you be satisfied? For me, that was a technicality... and it would appear like the Dems were not accepting the result of the election if they started suing based on the emoluments clause, day one.

If Bloomberg managed to win the Dem nomination and the general election running as a Democrat, I bet he wouldn't be able to TRULY and entirely divest from his empire, either.

That emoluments clause was appropriate for a time when presidents were not billionnaires who owned huge empires... An orange farm, some investments... that's easy to truly divest from. But the Trump Organization, or Bloomberg's? Not so easy. I'm not upset at that.

Sure, when he tries to hold an international summit with foreign heads of state in his Mar-a-Lago property, it is disgraceful. When foreign leaders stay in his Trump Hotels to appear sympathetic to him, it's distasteful... but in terms of Trump's wrongdoings, there are bigger fish to fry.

The man was rich before he became president, and he'll continue to be rich after he leaves office. If he sold his corporation to his heirs for $1 and they sold it back to him for $1 after the end of his term(s), that would maybe technically satisfy the emoluments clause, but would mean nothing.
Click to expand...

Well now you disputed the claim you are an independent. Why not admit you truly favor only Democrats? Why hide behind a mask? You exposed your true belief above.

Democrats are so hateful and eager to essentially fry Trump in the electric chair that they are giddy with pleasure they impeached him.

You are accurate though on the emoluments clause. Trump essentially divested total control to family. True they are family but hell can we force a president to get down to poverty level first?

Why not pass a law demanding any president peel away every nickel he owns to be president? Look, Clinton emerged a poverty stricken president. Is that what we want? Clinton is currently among the super rich.

Bloomberg is not the only Democrat who would have to go in stone broke if we went by the desires of those Democrats. Bernie Sanders owns three huge homes. Syoul;d he not be allowed to rent them to move to the white house?

Trump plays no active role in who books into any of his properties. "It is not practical for him to hang signs at each property, foreigners are not allowed.
 
Cardinal said:
I’m gonna rob a bank. But it’ll be cool because I’ll say, “Give me money and I won’t kill you, but this isn’t a robbery.” Or maybe I’ll just leave out the word “robbery” altogether, because that could implicate me in a robbery.
Click to expand...
Robbery has to involve an actual assault on a victim. If you just point a gun at them and they give you their money, that doesn't count.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Actually they hate for the love of hating. When they hated Reagan, my first republican vote ever for president (earlier my actual first was JFK and I only voted for the D party through and including Carter) I knew more so to a degree I got that. i had hated Reagan too when he was my then CA governor. I hated for the sake of hating. This is still what Democrats do. I was embroiled in the Democrat party ideology so know plenty about Democrats.

Why did I hate Reagan to run for Governor yet vote for him in 1980?

I believed all the horse pads said bad about the man at the time. When democrats blamed him for evicting the mentally ill, me and the rest of the democrats swallowed that lie hook line and sinker.

What about the lies told about the Senator from AZ, Barry Goldwater? I recall those lies. The Daisy ad was created by Johnson to defeat Goldwater.

The blacks of NY city could only trouble a rich man were they wanting to move into good quarters above their means and sue Trump.

But no, he is not racist. Who was he good friends with? The woman who departed, Amorosa? And what about Ben Carson?

Racists will not appoint blacks to dog catchers.

You took the word of the hateful and spiteful Media. Didn't you? What they told you you accepted as pure truth. Like the Lie told by the media that Bush invaded Iraq thinking Saddam had nuclear weapons. Bush was clear on why he invaded and it was not that he took the word of the CIA that Saddam had nukes. Bush did not even take Clinton's word for it.
Click to expand...

No, I took Trump's own words for it when determining that he was a racist:

1) The lies he spread about Obama being a Muslim born in Kenya. Only a racist says stupid **** like this. He knew that other racists, such as the majority of the Repug Party, would eat that **** up and that it would help him get elected as the Repug Presidential nominee in the future.

2) When he stated that the judge in the Trump University case couldn't be impartial because he had a Hispanic last name. Trump's opinion of the judge was based on his race. How is that not the very definition of a bigot?

And trying to defend this behavior will make you look like a bigot, so you shouldn't do it.
 
MovingPictures said:
Robbery has to involve an actual assault on a victim. If you just point a gun at them and they give you their money, that doesn't count.
Click to expand...

Also, you’d have to prove intent. Just because I put a gun in the teller’s face and demand money, how do you know that robbery is my intent? Unless you’re a telepath, you just can’t know that at all.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Oh, you think Trump is stupid. I actually don't think he is. But hey, if you want to think he is stupid, be my guest.

So, apparently you'd only believe in a quid-pro-quo if Trump were stupid enough to say in all words, in a call with lots of officials listening, "hey, here is a quid-pro-quo, Zelensky. I need to win re-election. It will be a personal objective of mine to win, and I have this pesky opponent, Joe Biden. So, I need you to help me. I need you to announce a bogus investigation on Biden so that he appears corrupt and loses points with the electorate, and I get my personal gain of winning re-election. I will NOT give you any aid or sell you any missiles if you don't accept my quid-pro-quo."

I mean, who do you think you're fooling?

I read an analogy here, published by another poster, I think it was Calamity. I don't have the link and I paraphrase, but it went a bit like this:

A businessman comes to see a politician. He says "I need this business permit and it is stalled. Can you help?" The politician then says "Oh well, I might help, if only I had enough time to look into these matters. You know, I am very busy running for re-election and my campaign needs funds, so I get busy fund-raising. But say, if by any chance, some businessman walked into my office and said, hey, here is a check of $200,000 for your campaign, well, I'd be immediately less busy with fund-raising and I'd have more time to look into your business permit; might actually be able to issue it."

So, the politician didn't say "here's a quid-pro-quo, you give me $200,000 for my re-election, and in exchange for it, I give you your business permit."

But are you seriously thinking that with the disguised phrasing two paragraphs above, this politician is NOT guilty of an illegal quid-pro-quo???? Are you actually THIS naive?

Of course Trump wouldn't mention the personal gain in all words... but it doesn't make it any less clear that he pressured Zelensky into a bogus investigation to smear a political opponent in his own re-election bid, that is, for personal gain.
Click to expand...

We can do much better by not writing comments that amount to putting words into the mouth of those we discuss this with. I got the idea you are a Democrat and you said no. But then you turned right around and called for Democrats to be in charge. What can I now think?

A Quid Pro Quo has to be proven. An accusation simply cuts no ice. Trying to pretend Zelensky was frightened makes him look super weak and a damned fool. I suggested a cure. And you fought against the cure.

Turn it around on Biden. He clearly admitted he extorted Ukraine but his rats on the sinking ship tried to pretend he was under duress from the rest of the world including the IMF and as the VP of the USA was literally forced by foreign forces to damage the prosecutor with a threat made against Ukraine.

And I surmise if i ask you if Biden is guilty you will say but of course not. And he threatened the Ukraine openly and notoriously. Biden is the man you expect to defend in this mess? Come on, I am no naive novice. If Trump is guilty as charged, so is Joe Biden only he did it forcefully and for personal gain.

 
Robertinfremont said:
Why do Democrats so vigorously dispute Turley if he did as you claim he did?
Click to expand...

I'm not vigorously disputing Turley. I'm explaining to you his position. Turley's position is not entirely unreasonable, but it's not supported by the Constitution. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of other legal scholars. There is nothing in the Constitution that states the Democrats must have ironclad evidence and proof before voting for impeachment. But this is what Turley is advocating and he is incorrect.

In fact, if Trump and other Republicans made similar types of plausible, fairly intelligent legal arguments such as Turley's, they would probably be in better shape in the court of public opinion. But here's the problem -- The idiot Trump and other idiot Repugs in Congress constantly state that Trump did absolutely nothing wrong....nobody but diehard Trump cultists such as yourself actually believes this.

If Trump just admitted what he did was wrong, then a lot of Americans would forgive him and he would be in much better shape politically regarding this impeachment. But he's too stupid to do this.
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
No, I took Trump's own words for it when determining that he was a racist:

1) The lies he spread about Obama being a Muslim born in Kenya. Only a racist says stupid **** like this. He knew that other racists, such as the majority of the Repug Party, would eat that **** up and that it would help him get elected as the Repug Presidential nominee in the future.

2) When he stated that the judge in the Trump University case couldn't be impartial because he had a Hispanic last name. Trump's opinion of the judge was based on his race. How is that not the very definition of a bigot?

And trying to defend this behavior will make you look like a bigot, so you shouldn't do it.
Click to expand...

No they do not. Trump has at no time claimed to be a racist. But Democrats being SOBS keep alleging he is.

Obama was born to a Muslim father a citizen of Kenya. Do you not recall it was the Democrats that took Obama to court over this issue when Obama whacked Hillary out of the race?

Trump has pulled some bone headed statements but that won't do it for an impeachment. Are you more in favor of a Mexican over a white born here in American person?

Why don't you call the lawyer by the name of Berg who sued Obama a Racist? I know why. He is a Democrat.

A Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” of the United States took an unusual twist this week, after a federally mandated deadline requiring Obama’s lawyers to produce a “vault” copy of his birth certificate expired with no response from Obama or his lawyers.

The lawsuit, filed by former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip J. Berg — a self-avowed supporter of Hillary Clinton — alleges that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus “ineligible” to run for president of the United States. It demands that Obama’s lawyers produce a copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Berg's suit and allegations have set off a wave of Internet buzz and rumors, though Obama could easily have put the matter to rest by providing the federal court with the basic documentation proving he is eligible to take the oath of a president. But Obama has apparently decided to deny the court and the public that documentation.
Click to expand...

Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit | Newsmax.com
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
I'm not vigorously disputing Turley. I'm explaining to you his position. Turley's position is not entirely unreasonable, but it's not supported by the Constitution. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of other legal scholars. There is nothing in the Constitution that states the Democrats must have ironclad evidence and proof before voting for impeachment. But this is what Turley is advocating and he is incorrect.

In fact, if Trump and other Republicans made similar types of plausible, fairly intelligent legal arguments such as Turley's, they would probably be in better shape in the court of public opinion. But here's the problem -- The idiot Trump and other idiot Repugs in Congress constantly state that Trump did absolutely nothing wrong....nobody but diehard Trump cultists such as yourself actually believes this.

If Trump just admitted what he did was wrong, then a lot of Americans would forgive him and he would be in much better shape politically regarding this impeachment. But he's too stupid to do this.
Click to expand...



let me state it this way. This ought to clear up the matter.


When Republicans do this to any Democrat president, will you defend the Republicans?

Oh and please do not state Biden would never do this since he already did. We have proof he extorted Ukraine.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Oh, you think Trump is stupid. I actually don't think he is. But hey, if you want to think he is stupid, be my guest.

So, apparently you'd only believe in a quid-pro-quo if Trump were stupid enough to say in all words, in a call with lots of officials listening, "hey, here is a quid-pro-quo, Zelensky. I need to win re-election. It will be a personal objective of mine to win, and I have this pesky opponent, Joe Biden. So, I need you to help me. I need you to announce a bogus investigation on Biden so that he appears corrupt and loses points with the electorate, and I get my personal gain of winning re-election. I will NOT give you any aid or sell you any missiles if you don't accept my quid-pro-quo, but if you do help me, I will send you the aid and sell you the missiles."

I mean, who do you think you're fooling?

I read an analogy here, published by another poster, I think it was Cardinal. I don't have the link and I paraphrase, but it went a bit like this:

A businessman comes to see a politician. He says "I need this business permit and it is stalled. Can you help?" The politician then says "Oh well, I might help, if only I had enough time to look into these matters. You know, I am very busy running for re-election and my campaign needs funds, so I get busy fund-raising. But say, if by any chance, some businessman walked into my office and said, hey, here is a check of $200,000 for your campaign, well, I'd be immediately less busy with fund-raising and I'd have more time to look into your business permit; might actually be able to issue it."

So, the politician didn't say "here's a quid-pro-quo, you give me $200,000 for my re-election, and in exchange for it, I give you your business permit."

But are you seriously thinking that with the disguised phrasing two paragraphs above, this politician is NOT guilty of an illegal quid-pro-quo???? Are you actually THIS naive?

Of course Trump wouldn't mention the personal gain in all words... but it doesn't make it any less clear that he pressured Zelensky into a bogus investigation to smear a political opponent in his own re-election bid, that is, for personal gain.
Click to expand...

Trump on his call did not offer nor ask for a dime from Zelensky and they did not even discuss money matters.
 
GreatNews2night said:
I would love to see these sycophants losing their seats, and the Senate returning to the Democrats.

As for the emoluments, I don't know. I can't really agree. Can you imagine the complexities involved in truly and meaningfully divesting from a multi-billion dollar corporation with interests in dozens of countries? It's too complex, and would be on paper only anyway, because his kids would continue to manage it and he'd resume after leaving office; what would that change anyway? If he sold the corporation to his sons and his daughter for a symbolic $1, would you be satisfied? For me, that was a technicality... and it would appear like the Dems were not accepting the result of the election if they started suing based on the emoluments clause, day one.

If Bloomberg managed to win the Dem nomination and the general election running as a Democrat, I bet he wouldn't be able to TRULY and entirely divest from his empire, either.

That emoluments clause was appropriate for a time when presidents were not billionnaires who owned huge empires... An orange farm, some investments... that's easy to truly divest from. But the Trump Organization, or Bloomberg's? Not so easy. I'm not upset at that.

Sure, when he tries to hold an international summit with foreign heads of state in his Mar-a-Lago property, it is disgraceful. When foreign leaders stay in his Trump Hotels to appear sympathetic to him, it's distasteful... but in terms of Trump's wrongdoings, there are bigger fish to fry.

The man was rich before he became president, and he'll continue to be rich after he leaves office. If he sold his corporation to his heirs for $1 and they sold it back to him for $1 after the end of his term(s), that would maybe technically satisfy the emoluments clause, but would mean nothing.
Click to expand...
This is why billionaires shouldn't run unless they are willing to sacrifice their previous life of big business.

The problem isn't that they make money, it's that their policy decisions are based on what's most profitable to them.
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
Republicans always point to lame, irrelevant anecdotal evidence when trying to prove a point.

Your dumb little anecdote is more important than Pruitt and Trump weakening the Clean Air Act? What total bull****.

Latest EPA guidance weakens air protections in favor of industry, critics say | TheHill


This article captures all of Pruitt's scandals at the EPA before being forced to resign. Yep, Trump is really "draining the swamp".

EPA chief Scott Pruitt's long list of controversies - CNNPolitics


Trump cultists are so hopelessly gullible.
Click to expand...

Look, more than an anecdote, I put in proof that the man I said I spoke to in fact did speak to me. You were offered his resume. As his obituary of course.

I shall read your article proving how much you despise Pruitt and will get deeper into the story by tomorrow.

I will use the CNN site and speak to those claims.

Travel
The EPA inspector general is probing Pruitt's travel practices. The review began following reports Pruitt would frequently travel home to Oklahoma on the taxpayers' dime. The IG twice expanded the probe, first as the agency acknowledged Pruitt used both a private plane and military jet to travel four times instead of flying commercial -- at a price of $60,000 -- and again to include all of Pruitt's travel from 2017.
In February, questions over Pruitt's travel prompted House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, to announce an inquiry into Pruitt's practices, and in response to the committee's request for documents, the EPA did not appear to turn over travel waivers granted to Pruitt for first-class travel.
Pruitt defended his first-class travel in February by saying it was for security purposes, citing the "toxic environment" in politics and implying he was less likely to face threats in a first-class crowd. EPA memos obtained by CNN said that if Pruitt flew coach, the occasional "lashing out from passengers" could "endanger his life."
EPA documents reviewed by CNN in February showed attorneys for Pruitt's office justifying a series of charter flights last summer, including some $14,000 expended on travel around his home state of Oklahoma.
A report from The Washington Post in mid-March said documents the EPA provided to Congress outlined further travel expenses from Pruitt, totaling about $68,000 and including a nearly $20,000, four-day trip to Morocco and a series of first-class flights.

First and not exclusively, who recalls the scandals surrounding Pelosi over her use of government airplanes to fly back to her home each weekend?

Why is she still in office?

I read the CNN article with great expectations given you posted the link. This crap is all about flying airplanes. Not about destroying the EPA.
 
Last edited:
Robertinfremont said:
Well now you disputed the claim you are an independent. Why not admit you truly favor only Democrats? Why hide behind a mask? You exposed your true belief above.

Democrats are so hateful and eager to essentially fry Trump in the electric chair that they are giddy with pleasure they impeached him.

You are accurate though on the emoluments clause. Trump essentially divested total control to family. True they are family but hell can we force a president to get down to poverty level first?

Why not pass a law demanding any president peel away every nickel he owns to be president? Look, Clinton emerged a poverty stricken president. Is that what we want? Clinton is currently among the super rich.

Bloomberg is not the only Democrat who would have to go in stone broke if we went by the desires of those Democrats. Bernie Sanders owns three huge homes. Syoul;d he not be allowed to rent them to move to the white house?

Trump plays no active role in who books into any of his properties. "It is not practical for him to hang signs at each property, foreigners are not allowed.
Click to expand...

Oh, so if I'd like to see the Senate back with the Democrats, I'm not an independent??? So, I don't have the option to lean one way or the other? Are you trying to dictate to ME, how I should feel about the two major parties??? I thought that last I checked, we voters were allowed to have preferences. It's a free country, if you haven't noticed.

About the emoluments clause, it doesn't require that the president becomes a pauper before inauguration. It forbids him from earning money from FOREIGN sources. You said you know the law... apparently you don't. Here:

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives.
Click to expand...

So, no, it wouldn't prevent Bernie Sanders from earning rent from his houses unless he rented it to the president of Venezuela, LOL. But it would prevent Bloomberg from earning money from the foreign branch of his news organization and his financial organization if they had for example a contract with a local foreign government to provide news coverage or financial advise. It would prevent Trump from earning money from a Trump Hotel in Istanbul if Erdogan wanted to hire the hotel for the wedding of his daughter. Foreign governmental officials coming to the United States and spontaneously staying in a Trump Hotel would not be something that Trump would be able to personally forbid, so, that's why I called it distasteful, but I didn't call it illegal.

Like with the "personal" thing, sometimes I fear that you need a dictionary. Can I recommend a good one? Try the American Heritage Dictionary. Here is a link:

American Heritage Dictionary - Search

You might get better informed about the meaning of words such as "personal" and "distasteful."
 
Robertinfremont said:
Trump on his call did not offer nor ask for a dime from Zelensky and they did not even discuss money matters.
Click to expand...

Who is talking about money matters? Do you think his attempt to enroll a foreign head of state to help in his domestic US re-election (by the way, a violation of the American electoral laws) is not a quid-pro-quo because Trump didn't ask Zelensky for money???

Look, if you are THAT misinformed, I'm done. I over-estimated you. Now I see that I'm wasting my time, discussing with someone who doesn't possess the most elementary knowledge of how the US president is expected, and actually allowed to behave, according to the US Constitution.

Now you're mixing up the emoluments clause with the impeachable offense of enlisting foreign help in a domestic election.

Sorry, but if that's what you think, you don't deserve a continuous discussion. It's late anyway, so, good night. I'm going to bed.
 
MovingPictures said:
This is why billionaires shouldn't run unless they are willing to sacrifice their previous life of big business.

The problem isn't that they make money, it's that their policy decisions are based on what's most profitable to them.
Click to expand...

Give us one example where Trump profits due to policy decisions. Can you come up with one?
 
MovingPictures said:
Disagree.

I'm not going to show respect for a senator that votes for acquittal, when the evidence for guilt in what is clearly a high crime is obvious. That's especially the case if that senator also refuses to hear from the very witnesses they say are critical to the credibility of the charges against the President.

Now, if Murkowski votes to allow the House to present both their witnesses and call the witnesses Trump has blocked, then I'll show some respect for her.

In the meantime, don't count on her to do the right thing.
Click to expand...

Conspiracies and delusions are not necessary MP.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Who is talking about money matters? Do you think his attempt to enroll a foreign head of state to help in his domestic US re-election (by the way, a violation of the American electoral laws) is not a quid-pro-quo because Trump didn't ask Zelensky for money???

Look, if you are THAT misinformed, I'm done. I over-estimated you. Now I see that I'm wasting my time, discussing with someone who doesn't possess the most elementary knowledge of how the US president is expected, and actually allowed to behave, according to the US Constitution.

Now you're mixing up the emoluments clause with the impeachable offense of enlisting foreign help in a domestic election.

Sorry, but if that's what you think, you don't deserve a continuous discussion. It's late anyway, so, good night. I'm going to bed.
Click to expand...

Please, show us the precise words said by Trump amounting to Zelensky work with me to interfere in election laws?

Can you at least produce that?

My major issue is that Zelensky dropped not a hint he needed any money from Trump.
 
Robertinfremont said:
We can do much better by not writing comments that amount to putting words into the mouth of those we discuss this with. I got the idea you are a Democrat and you said no. But then you turned right around and called for Democrats to be in charge. What can I now think?

A Quid Pro Quo has to be proven. An accusation simply cuts no ice. Trying to pretend Zelensky was frightened makes him look super weak and a damned fool. I suggested a cure. And you fought against the cure.

Turn it around on Biden. He clearly admitted he extorted Ukraine but his rats on the sinking ship tried to pretend he was under duress from the rest of the world including the IMF and as the VP of the USA was literally forced by foreign forces to damage the prosecutor with a threat made against Ukraine.

And I surmise if i ask you if Biden is guilty you will say but of course not. And he threatened the Ukraine openly and notoriously. Biden is the man you expect to defend in this mess? Come on, I am no naive novice. If Trump is guilty as charged, so is Joe Biden only he did it forcefully and for personal gain.

Click to expand...


Last thing, I only saw this after my last post saying good night, but it's the last one: you don't seem to understand, again, what is PERSONAL gain.

Biden was implementing Obama's policies. Hear the tape, he says "call Obama" when the Ukrainian official balks. Obama IS entitled to asking for a quid-pro-quo. It's not illegal to merely ask for a quid-pro-quo if what you are asking for is something that will benefit US foreign policy. It's illegal when it's for PERSONAL gain. What personal gain Obama was obtaining, when he pressured Ukraine (via Biden) to clean up otherwise we wouldn't help them?

Obama was not running for re-election. Biden was not running for office. There was no PERSONAL gain.

Example so that you understand:

The boss says to his female employee: "I'll only give you a promotion if you sleep with me." That's personal gain. He wants sex for his personal satisfaction. That's an ILLEGAL quid-pro-quo called sexual harassment.

Now, think of another boss. He says to his female employee: "I'll only give you a promotion if you are willing to work harder for this project important to our firm, even doing overtime if needed, which will be paid for of course."

That's a quid-pro-quo. He is offering a promotion in exchange for hard work and paid overtime, in order to advance the FIRM's objectives, not for PERSONAL gain. That's a quid-pro-quo but not illegal.

What you saw in the video above is indeed a quid-pro-quo, but legal, because Biden is not doing it for personal gain.

What you saw in Trump's phone call is indeed a quid-pro-quo, but illegal, because Trump is doing it for personal gain.

Get it now?

I'm sure you won't, but I tried.

Good night for good, now.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Please, show us the precise words said by Trump amounting to Zelensky work with me to interfere in election laws?

Can you at least produce that?

My major issue is that Zelensky dropped not a hint he needed any money from Trump.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding??? Read the transcript. Zelensky wanted the missiles, Trump said "but we need a favor." The whole thing was to smear Trump's front-running political opponent in his re-election bid. Again, don't expect the exact words because Trump is not stupid, but it is incredibly clear, not only from the transcript, but from multiple witness accounts. Were you following the hearings???

Have you seen the testimony that Trump actually only wanted Zelensky to ANNOUNCE an investigation (which would smear Biden just by announcing it) even if the investigation didn't actually happen, which makes it crystal clear that it's not a question of cleaning up corruption in Ukraine, but rather, smearing his opponent?

You guys are blind and deaf. Jesus!

Anyway, for the third time, good night now. I don't know why I'm still being dragged into this. You'll never learn.
 
A poster supplied the emoluments clause.

Notice the way it is phrased. Trump has not accepted any gifts nor taken free money. The Trump properties are apparently extremely desirable. And one can of course come from foreign lands and be welcome to rent there. But that does not mean Trump had any control. Even you can ask the property managers if they get permission from Trump for each guest coming from a foreign country. It is the hotel managers not Trump making rules as to guests staying there.

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives.
Click to expand...

As to the simper I read over my saying a person in lock step with Democrats may plead to be an independent but what is the difference among that person and her claims vs what Democrats claim? And I do not rule who votes for whom nor attempt to.
 
When it was his sons firm being investigated and Biden extorted Ukraine to fire him (prosecutor), that is for the personal gain of Biden. Do not feed me this claptrap it was for non gain.

And he bragged what he did. I provided video proof.
 
GreatNews2night said:
You're misinformed. Yes, the senators can force a change in the proceedings (such as calling witnesses) by a 51-49 vote. Look it up. There is an ANALOGY with a trial but it is fundamentally a political process with its own rules. It's NOT a criminal trial. Yes, even if this may surprise you, 51 senators CAN change the way the Senate proceeds in an impeachment trial.
Click to expand...

Instead of telling me to "look it up", how about you provide some facts that support your contention? After all, I asked what makes YOU think what you say is correct?

Moving on...
 
GreatNews2night said:
Are you kidding??? Read the transcript. Zelensky wanted the missiles, Trump said "but we need a favor." The whole thing was to smear Trump's front-running political opponent in his re-election bid. Again, don't expect the exact words because Trump is not stupid, but it is incredibly clear, not only from the transcript, but from multiple witness accounts. Were you following the hearings???

Have you seen the testimony that Trump actually only wanted Zelensky to ANNOUNCE an investigation (which would smear Biden just by announcing it) even if the investigation didn't actually happen, which makes it crystal clear that it's not a question of cleaning up corruption in Ukraine, but rather, smearing his opponent?

You guys are blind and deaf. Jesus!

Anyway, for the third time, good night now. I don't know why I'm still being dragged into this. You'll never learn.
Click to expand...

You keep getting dragged into this because of your insistence that your cloud fantasies are real.

When Trump said, "but we need a favor", he wasn't speaking as an individual. Notice the word, "we". He didn't say, "I". He was talking about the US...not himself.

And then you dream up a nebulous connection to Joe "Stick my foot in my mouth" Biden as a political opponent...when nobody even knows if Joe can get past his own political opponents.

Oh, and that "testimony" you mention...that was nothing but opinion and hearsay. "I THOUGHT that's what he meant." "Someone told me they heard from someone else that someone talked to Trump and thinks that's what Trump was doing."

LOL!! Talk about "blind and deaf"!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom