Trump

[pinstripers]

Legality is far from an open and shut case, for either side.

The question every Trump supporter/defender needs to be asking themselves is whether they can support someone who actively sought out information they believed to be harmful to their opponent and coming from a foreign government.

If somebody committed a crime, prosecute them. As far as trying to get dirt on an opponent, I feel certain that they all have many people hired to do exactly that.

[WSU and Reds Fan]

This whole thing reminds me so much of the Clinton Impeachment. You had about every Republican saying he lied and its a crime and he needs impeached. Every Democrat was saying of course he lied, wouldn't you lie to try and save your marriage.

Point being at that time it seemed as though every news publication and television was against Clinton and many Dems took it personally, just like it feels now for Trump and many Repubs. At that time the Republicans were outraged the President could get away with such a serious crime and fought to take it as far as they could.

Now the situation is basically the same and the press and every Democrat is going to be outraged and fight to take this as far as they can.

Just like the Dems thought they were being sneaky with the nuclear option and then it came back to bite them with when Trump appointed Gorsuch and they couldn't use the filibuster.

[wufan]

If it's a crime, let's prosecute.

I totally agree with this. It's simple and to the point. If the DA says it's a crime, then it should be prosecuted!

[Aargh]

You don't press charges and prosecute while the investigation is underway.

[SHOXJOCK]

Legality is far from an open and shut case, for either side.

The question every Trump supporter/defender needs to be asking themselves is whether they can support someone who actively sought out information they believed to be harmful to their opponent and coming from a foreign government. At this point, arguing about the legality of it is just going to result in spinning wheels. The more important question is about whether you can still defend Trump and his staff. Assuming you can't defend Jr's actions, you have to hope Trump starts trying to distance himself from Jr, Kushner, and Manafort as quickly as possible.

I thanked you for this post because of this "Legality is far from an open and shut case, for either side." and this " At this point, arguing about the legality of it is just going to result in spinning wheels." I am not a supporter/defender of Trump. The best I can say about him is he stopped Hillary. I'm a fiscal conservative that wants the government to help as many people as possible within a balanced budget. We all know that's not happening.

[wufan]

Legality is far from an open and shut case, for either side.

The question every Trump supporter/defender needs to be asking themselves is whether they can support someone who actively sought out information they believed to be harmful to their opponent and coming from a foreign government. At this point, arguing about the legality of it is just going to result in spinning wheels. The more important question is about whether you can still defend Trump and his staff. Assuming you can't defend Jr's actions, you have to hope Trump starts trying to distance himself from Jr, Kushner, and Manafort as quickly as possible.

So I think this is an excellent point. If you are a Trump supporter, are you okay with this? I'm a fiscal conservative/libertarian (classical liberal maybe) that is a registered Republican. I'm a registered Republican because the republican policy most closely resembles my believes, not because it resembles my ethics. This election campaign, after the primaries, I was given two choices, and Trump's campaign policies/promises were much closer to mine than Hillaries, therefore I voted for Johnson (who was a blithering idiot in front of a camera). For the first time since Clinton's reelection campaign, I voted for a non-republican for president.

Trump won, and I was excited because Johnson didn't stand a chance and Trump was closer to my ideals. I am not surprised by his unethical behavior, nor do I support it. The fact that he is unethical, at this point, is of no consequence. I hope that he will push a fiscally conservative agenda for the next three years and then get beat out in the primaries by a better candidate. If not, I hope he gets beat in the general election by a moderate democrat. I won't vote for Trump, and I won't vote for a socialist. If Trump did something illegal I hope he is impeached and removed from office. The in between is all about whether or not his policies are ultimately beneficial to our country through my view. I will continue to support good policies from the President, should they be put forward, until he is proven guilty of a crime.

[Kung Wu]

Can you show a single case where someone running for President has been offered and (at the very least) attempted to accept a political advantage from a foreign national? We might be on precedent-setting ground here.

You mean like this:

"This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility," Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.


"I will transmit this information to Vladimir," said Medvedev, Putin's protégé and long considered number two in Moscow's power structure.

[pinstripers]

If not, I hope he gets beat in the general election by a moderate democrat.

these are extinct, they no longer exist

[SB Shock]

these are extinct, they no longer exist

I thought that was what the Republican party is - moderate democrats?

[wufan]

I thought that was what the Republican party is - moderate democrats?

My Dad told me at a young age that all politicians screw you, but republicans screw you a little less.

[ShockCrazy]

You mean like this:

"This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility," Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.


"I will transmit this information to Vladimir," said Medvedev, Putin's protégé and long considered number two in Moscow's power structure.

There is a bit of difference between negotiating with a foreign country to rise to power and negotiating with a foreign country in terms of diplomacy operating as a head of state. I hope you are able to recognize the difference.

[pinstripers]

There is a bit of difference between negotiating with a foreign country to rise to power and negotiating with a foreign country in terms of diplomacy operating as a head of state. I hope you are able to recognize the difference.

"Hey Vlad-man, I can't tear apart the American military the way I want to right now, cause I wouldn't get re-elected. Afterwards though, I'll really weaken our defenses, so don't worry."


............yeah, I recognize the difference...............

[wufan]

There is a bit of difference between negotiating with a foreign country to rise to power and negotiating with a foreign country in terms of diplomacy operating as a head of state. I hope you are able to recognize the difference.

While it's of little consequence to the Trump discussion, I found it to be a really good answer to the question that was asked.

[ShockCrazy]

While it's of little consequence to the Trump discussion, I found it to be a really good answer to the question that was asked.

Really? One is a president wanting time to negotiate to have political capital in his country. The other is a candidate seeking help from a foreign government in getting elected. One is a negotiation to try to mutually benefit both countries, the other is to benefit one country and one individual. Still not seeing a difference?

[Aargh]

The question is quickly becoming how this will affect Trump's ability to work with Congress. 2018 is rapidly approaching and there is reason to believe some incumbent Republicans are in shaky elections where support of Trump could be a factor in their re-election.

If only a few Republicans find it to their advantage to create some distance from Trump, then the Republicans effectively lose control of Congress. That would create a Congress unable to actually accomplish much of anything.

There have been some comments about the Dems creating the nuclear option that the Repubs are now using. I see some similaerities between what the Repubs did with Benghazi to what the Dems are now doing with Russia.

The posts about, "if there was a crime, then prosecute" could be applied to Benghazi. The investigations into Benghazi went on for years and years without prosecution. Now that the tables are turned and there is suspicion of the Republican side engaging in questionable activities, why would the Dems not pursue it well past the "beating a dead horse" stage like the Repubs did with Benghazi?