Debate Now Trump's Abuse of Office

[Oddball]

Not at all, it is based on witness testimony. If you don't believe them you should demand that Trump testify in the Senate. Under oath. Just what Clinton did.

BTW, Clinton testified in a deposition, that was entered int evidence during the HoR impeachment proceedings....He did not testify before the Senate in the trial.

I can live with that. I'd love to hear about Trump's affairs.

Why ?

I bet they're better than Bill's. I also wonder if they are still going on, are they happening in the Oval Office, and is Trump open to blackmail.

Yet another non-argument that has nothing to do with anything.

You really suck at this.

 

[protectionist]

Not at all, it is based on witness testimony. If you don't believe them you should demand that Trump testify in the Senate. Under oath. Just what Clinton did.

BTW, Clinton testified in a deposition, that was entered int evidence during the HoR impeachment proceedings....He did not testify before the Senate in the trial.

I can live with that. I'd love to hear about Trump's affairs.

Why ?

I bet they're better than Bill's. I also wonder if they are still going on, are they happening in the Oval Office, and is Trump open to blackmail.

Trump has had too much already dumped on him to be open to blackmail.
The public's response? Ho hum.

As for affairs, Melania's business, not ours.

 

[alang1216]

Not at all, it is based on witness testimony. If you don't believe them you should demand that Trump testify in the Senate. Under oath. Just what Clinton did.

BTW, Clinton testified in a deposition, that was entered int evidence during the HoR impeachment proceedings....He did not testify before the Senate in the trial.

I can live with that. I'd love to hear about Trump's affairs.

Why ?

I bet they're better than Bill's. I also wonder if they are still going on, are they happening in the Oval Office, and is Trump open to blackmail.

Trump has had too much already dumped on him to be open to blackmail.
The public's response? Ho hum.

As for affairs, Melania's business, not ours.

If affairs are not relevant why did Starr ask Bill about his?

 

[protectionist]

BTW, Clinton testified in a deposition, that was entered int evidence during the HoR impeachment proceedings....He did not testify before the Senate in the trial.

I can live with that. I'd love to hear about Trump's affairs.

Why ?

I bet they're better than Bill's. I also wonder if they are still going on, are they happening in the Oval Office, and is Trump open to blackmail.

Trump has had too much already dumped on him to be open to blackmail.
The public's response? Ho hum.

As for affairs, Melania's business, not ours.

If affairs are not relevant why did Starr ask Bill about his?

Not my problem.

 

[alang1216]

I can live with that. I'd love to hear about Trump's affairs.

Why ?

I bet they're better than Bill's. I also wonder if they are still going on, are they happening in the Oval Office, and is Trump open to blackmail.

Trump has had too much already dumped on him to be open to blackmail.
The public's response? Ho hum.

As for affairs, Melania's business, not ours.

If affairs are not relevant why did Starr ask Bill about his?

Not my problem.

dodge

 

[Crepitus]

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

There is not one, single, solitary shred of direct and verifiable evidence to back up that party man stooge talking point....Zero.

Not even mulvany's email withholding the aid 90 minutes after tRump's infamous phone call?

There's a pile of evidence and it keeps growing.

That's not evidence...That's more speculation and supposition.

Your "pile" adds up to bupkis.

A months long effort to use the power of his office to gain political benefit isn't evidence? There was much testimony to that effect. What else would you require?

The problem with this naive notion (and that of the entire Democrats' dopey charade) is that there was clear corruption going on by the Biden bad boys.

If there had not been, you might have had a case for "political benefit".

There wasn't.

There isn't.

It's just made up conspiracy theories.

 

[Crepitus]

1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's est interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.

1. You've broken your own rule and provided no links to your assertions.

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

I'm sick of hearing those horseshit assertions repeated over and over as if they were FACT:

1. The difference is it was not for personal gain. PROVE Trump did it for PERSONAL GAIN.
2. It was for the good of the nation. PROVE Trump's inquiry wasn't for the good of the nation. Mind you, a former AG (I think the one under Bush) has already gone on record in interview saying that it absolutely was.
3. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. SHOW US what Trump absolutely "gained" with the Ukrainian phone call! Impeachment? Knocking Biden out of 1st place? Getting Biden to resign or be investigated? What????

tRump wants validation that his buddy vladimir didn't help him get elected, and he doesn't care if there's an actual investigation into the Bidens, just the announcement so he can use it to smear them.

The proof is in the testimony, in the documents, and in his own words.

 

[Oddball]

tRump wants validation that his buddy vladimir didn't help him get elected, and he doesn't care if there's an actual investigation into the Bidens, just the announcement so he can use it to smear them.

The proof is in the testimony, in the documents, and in his own words.

IOW, there is no proof.

 

[Crepitus]

tRump wants validation that his buddy vladimir didn't help him get elected, and he doesn't care if there's an actual investigation into the Bidens, just the announcement so he can use it to smear them.

The proof is in the testimony, in the documents, and in his own words.

IOW, there is no proof.

That isn't what I said at all

 

[Oddball]

tRump wants validation that his buddy vladimir didn't help him get elected, and he doesn't care if there's an actual investigation into the Bidens, just the announcement so he can use it to smear them.

The proof is in the testimony, in the documents, and in his own words.

IOW, there is no proof.

That isn't what I said at all

It's exactly what you said...You merely used more words to say it.

 

[toobfreak]

tRump wants validation that his buddy vladimir didn't help him get elected,

NON SEQUITUR. You haven't proven any of your past claims now you are moving onto yet more without proof! His "buddy?" What does that mean? Prove they are buddies in any unusual, sordid or unnatural way, and please, don't offer a video where Trump merely says something friendly towards him. Up until now, normal people used to call that DIPLOMACY.

and he doesn't care if there's an actual investigation into the Bidens, just the announcement so he can use it to smear them.

Idiocy. First you say you cannot believe anything Trump says, then you say he risked his presidency to take out a rival that up to now, no one even thinks he is a serious contender for! And now you say Trump doesn't even want a serious investigation that would expose Biden?

. . Wow.

And all of this for a guy who appears hurt not one bit so far by Trump's "gain." And all against a guy who can't say 5 words without stumbling and has lost badly in every one of his last 3-4-5 tries at the White House?