Trump

[Kung Wu]

Okay just so I am clear:

Asking an allied foreign government to cooperate with your Attorney General if there is evidence that a former executive officer broke the law by muscling a regime for personal gain is impeachable, because the former executive officer is a political opponent.

But HIRING a foreign secret service agent to go to an Eastern block enemy in order to dig up dirt on your political opponent -- well that's just opposition research.

Oh, and ... when you start using the "i" word before your target even sleeps his first night in the White House .. well ... you done showed your hand waaaay too early.

[ShockingButTrue]

Okay just so I am clear:

Asking an allied foreign government to cooperate with your Attorney General if there is evidence that a former executive officer broke the law by muscling a regime for personal gain is impeachable, because the former executive officer is a political opponent.

But HIRING a foreign secret service agent to go to an Eastern block enemy in order to dig up dirt on your political opponent -- well that's just opposition research.

Oh, and ... when you start using the "i" word before your target even sleeps his first night in the White House .. well ... you done showed your hand waaaay too early.

...or, the Snowflakes want to impeach the President for what biden did, under the, AGAIN, obama admin.

Because, the case for impeaching him for what hildabeast did fell rather flat. Ray Charles saw it.

[wufan]

Got it. Just a misunderstanding then. I'd said "Well, if you believe that he established a quid pro quo with a foreign government so that it would assist in an investigation against a political opponent, you don't really have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to the high ground about "individual liberty."" And I believe you argued with that premise. It now sounds like you're not defending a quid pro quo situation, so we're good.

Obviously, I think people are being willfully ignorant to suggest the "I'd like you to do me a favor, though" language is irrelevant. But alas, that's the part I said you might disagree with. And it appears you do. You are in fact suggesting Trump is so altruistic that he wants to personally root out Ukrainian corruption, even if that comes at the high price of incriminating Biden's son.

I’ve been in discussions with government officials where a quid pro quo was on the table. It was far more obvious then what I read in this conversation. I actually do think that there is some potential innuendo in Trump’s language, but it’s super soft. This probably does warrant additional investigation, but if they don’t find someone that will testify to Trump directing a quid pro quo, then it’s nothing.

[jdshock]

Okay just so I am clear:

Asking an allied foreign government to cooperate with your Attorney General if there is evidence that a former executive officer broke the law by muscling a regime for personal gain is impeachable, because the former executive officer is a political opponent.

But HIRING a foreign secret service agent to go to an Eastern block enemy in order to dig up dirt on your political opponent -- well that's just opposition research.

This comparison is a little bit like complaining that you can't write off your cash donation to your needy friend but other people can write off their donations to 501(c)(3) organizations that you disagree with. Your statements are lacking any kind of nuance, but yeah, some things are illegal and some things aren't. That's just kind of how it works.

Many people are making the argument that asking the foreign official to cooperate with the AG and Trump's personal attorney on these matters is illegal. Period. As I said before, I do not know anyone who is making the argument that it would be legal if there was a quid pro quo type situation.

As for the opposition research aspects, yeah, a lot of that should probably be made illegal. But hiring a law firm to hire outside consultants who previously worked for another government, it would appear that is legal.

But just because something else bad is currently legal is not a reason that the first thing should also be legal.

[jdshock]

I’ve been in discussions with government officials where a quid pro quo was on the table. It was far more obvious then what I read in this conversation. I actually do think that there is some potential innuendo in Trump’s language, but it’s super soft. This probably does warrant additional investigation, but if they don’t find someone that will testify to Trump directing a quid pro quo, then it’s nothing.

Quid pro quo just means something for something. There are all sorts of quid pro quo arrangements that are not illegal. If you walk down to QT and buy yourself a diet coke this morning, that's a quid pro quo arrangement.

I'll have to take your word for it that you sat in on meetings with more clearly illegal offers made. From what I have seen, that would be unusual. Obviously one of the most extreme we've ever seen was Blagojevich with the "I've got this thing and it's f****** golden... I'm just not giving it up for f****** nothing." That was the most slam dunk ever, and even that requires a prosecutor to show context and intent behind the phrase.

And, I'm repeating myself here, it's not "nothing" even if you assume there is no quid pro quo. It's arguably illegal. The Trump and Co. are trying to make this all about whether there was a "direct" quid pro quo. That's helpful information to have, but it's absolutely not a critical element that you must have to find illegality.

[Kung Wu]

Many people are making the argument that asking the foreign official to cooperate with the AG and Trump's personal attorney on these matters is illegal.

...

But hiring a law firm to hire outside consultants who previously worked for another government, it would appear that is legal.

So "many people" are saying:

Person A can hire counsel to hire foreign consultants to meet with foreign administrators for information, but
Person B cannot hire counsel to meet with a foreign administration for information

[jdshock]

So "many people" are saying:

Person A can hire counsel to hire foreign consultants to meet with foreign administrators for information, but
Person B cannot hire counsel to meet with a foreign administration for information

To be clear, there is so little in this area that is CLEARLY black and white illegal or legal. There isn't a ton of well settled case law on these matters.

But surely you're willing to admit that Person B is the president of the United States, and in an official call with the president of Ukraine, he (at a minimum) asked the president to coordinate an investigation with the US attorney general and his own personal, not-a-government-official, attorney.

Even if your second scenario were legal, that's a pretty different fact pattern.

[pinstripers]

We all can agree that Biden is completely corrupt. How that relates to Trump is up for debate.

[Kung Wu]

But surely you're willing to admit that Person B is the president of the United States, and in an official call with the president of Ukraine, he (at a minimum) asked the president to coordinate an investigation with the US attorney general and his own personal, not-a-government-official, attorney.

You are saying President Trump should have dismissed all of the officials listening in so it would have been unofficial? I can't imagine what the Democrats would have done with that. He should try it with the Chinese fella.

[jdshock]

Nope.

The fact that it is an official call is just relevant for discussing the overall context. An official call might suggest you should look for less direct language since the parties would be aware of others listening, it might add additional weight to the underlying topics since it was intended to be a formal discussion around other topics, etc. A secret call or informal meeting would obviously be relevant since it would suggest more suspicious behavior but it might also suggest the parties were not aware of third-parties so they could speak more freely or that there was less weight riding on the underlying topics. It's all relevant. Just painting a picture.

Third time in a row you've tried to create a ridiculous conclusion from what I've said? How about this... after reading the transcript, is this how you think the president of the United States should act?

[Shockm]

It is unprecedented that a person in the intelligence community turned in the President for his dealings and words with heads of states. Others in this community had to have known about dealings between a past President and other world leaders because of their jobs and very likely at times disagreed with what the President did.

Why don't we just have the President when he talks to a world leader, do it on a conference call with the Congress on another line. They can then release it to the news and publicize ALL communications between any future President and other world leaders. This should solve the problem for intelligence members who may disagree with a President.

[Kung Wu]

I hate our comment system -- it kills the discussion because it's difficult to quote and nobody can follow the conversation.

Third time in a row you've tried to create a ridiculous conclusion from what I've said? How about this... after reading the transcript, is this how you think the president of the United States should act?

I take exception to that. I think you think they are ridiculous, but they aren't. I think you are willfully buying into the ever moving Democrat witch hunt. The leftist propaganda machine and a bunch of never-Trumper sore losers have been talking about impeachment from before he ever slept at the White House.

THAT's what is ridiculous.

[jdshock]

I hate our comment system -- it kills the discussion because it's difficult to quote and nobody can follow the conversation.



I take exception to that. I think you think they are ridiculous, but they aren't. I think you are willfully buying into the ever moving Democrat witch hunt. The leftist propaganda machine and a bunch of never-Trumper sore losers have been talking about impeachment from before he ever slept at the White House.

THAT's what is ridiculous.

"Ridiculous" was not meant to be an insult. You were using "reductio ad absurdum" which is an absolutely absurd phrase to have to type out on a discussion board. You were intentionally trying to take my stances to what would otherwise be a "ridiculous" conclusion. You're telling me your intention was to suggest the following was not an absurd conclusion:

Asking an allied foreign government to cooperate with your Attorney General if there is evidence that a former executive officer broke the law by muscling a regime for personal gain is impeachable, because the former executive officer is a political opponent.

But HIRING a foreign secret service agent to go to an Eastern block enemy in order to dig up dirt on your political opponent -- well that's just opposition research.

It was intentionally ridiculous. I'm saying they don't flow from the logic I've put forth. But to be clear, the conclusions were intentionally ridiculous. That is the argument method you were using.

[ShockCrazy]

So we're also going to pretend the President didn't supposedly make this transcript codeword-level classified, which is exclusively to be used for national security purposes and not for covering up politically sensitive material(and apparently he has done so before). Which that action if true, would be verifiably, a clear cut crime. Cool, nothing to see here folks.

[WuDrWu]

Nobody is pretending. Somebody did it. According to the whistleblower, he has names. Name them. Get them under oath. Get the impeachment going right now. Time is wasting. Get this done, one way or the other, and do what you're going to do.

[WuDrWu]

Hypothetically, replace "Hunter Biden" with "Track Palin". What would Adam and the Dems say now?

If you say nothing, then you're a liar AND an asshole.

[C0|dB|00ded]

lol. Doc gettin' hot!

I feel the same way. Somebody needs to intervene before these Dims light off a powder keg that nobody will be able to put out.


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

So we're also going to pretend the President didn't supposedly make this transcript codeword-level classified, which is exclusively to be used for national security purposes and not for covering up politically sensitive material(and apparently he has done so before). Which that action if true, would be verifiably, a clear cut crime. Cool, nothing to see here folks.

Donald Trump has been assailed by the Deep State since the moment he became a threat to win the presidency. He was attempting to discover how corrupt the corrupt Democrat party really was. If the Democrat party was as corrupt as people are saying they are then he would need to tread very carefully investigating their prize cow would he not? And if the Biden family was the recipient of laundered money from China, do you not think that is a national security issue? Of course Donald's actions could be used to argue that what Obummer & Co. did to him was the exact same sort of "vetting"... but it wouldn't be. Donald isn't wire-tapping anyone, he is just having a friendly convo with another world leader. This is a privilege of winning the presidency - higher level access to information. If at any moment The Donald would direct one of his investigative agencies to "put a tail" on Creepy Joe... then that would be impeachable in my opinion. It's exactly what was done to Trump.

I personally think it was very foolish him doing any of this himself. He knows he is being watched by handfuls of Deep State'rs each and every day. As I alluded to earlier, perhaps this was all by design.


T


...:cool: