Crime Trump-Ukraine Megathread v4

[LangfordBarrow]

"He has every right as the President to do so, if he wants to".



----------

BTW any one want to bet that despite all the Republicans doing damage control this weekend out on the talk circuit proclaiming 'Trump was not serious about having China investigate. Do you really believe he was serious?', that within one month Trump states he was serious or again calls on China to investigate?

Let's see what they uncover when they search that code word classified system for inappropriate inclusions. Should be paydirt. There are people that chuckle about us having a President that's like a character out of The Godfather.

 

[machidafan99]

“When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things—Comey, Russia—you blame yourself,” Schumer told The Washington Post.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You are jumping to some serious conclusions here.

I edited my post to show more what I meant.

Now, motive for withholding the aid is the key element here. I am not an expert of American-Ukrainian relations. Perhaps Trump wanted Ukraine to change a trade policy that he thought would hurt Americans, thus was why he was withholding aid.

Can you prove his motive was purely self-centered?

Has he offered any explanation for this?

Seems like a person with a legit reason for doing this, would want to tell us what that is.

Without that, we are left to look at what is on record, as to what he was asking for.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

It wasn’t the same, as I clearly pointed out. Maybe take your Trump goggles off and look at it objectively.

Surely you’d be ok with at least investigating it if you weren’t ok with it and felt there was wrongdoing. Right? Would you just say “Oh well, it’s wrong but whatever. There should be no repercussions.” Even if Obama freely admitted he broke the law? You don’t think that would merit looking into further? Because that’s where we are. An impeachment inquiry is an investigation.

What Obama did was just as bad and you don't care. Take off your goggles too.

 

[sdpdude9]

What Obama did was just as bad and you don't care. Take off your goggles too.

Whataboutism. But what law did he break? I’ll take this as your concession, since you have no retort to the rest of what I’ve said. You’re a partisan hack, take your L and walk away.

 

[Ophydian]

Not complaining. I’m impressed and entertained at the level of choke Trump has exhibited once he got his shot.

I’m surprised you thought he might not.

 

[zebby23]

What Obama did was just as bad and you don't care. Take off your goggles too.

you look foolish trying to equate the two. Quit while your just a lot behind. It could get worse

 

[Ophydian]

I thought it was a given that you sound dumb - hence my IQ is higher than yours.

I’d beg to differ. For someone who repeats untruths over and over you don’t strike me as too intelligent.

 

[sdpdude9]

you look foolish trying to equate the two. Quit while your just a lot behind. It could get worse

He’s shown why republicans don’t want to answer the question, “How would you feel about this if it were a democrat?” Because they either have to admit they are partisan or have to admit they are ok with the president breaking the law.

 

[zebby23]

He’s shown why republicans don’t want to answer the question, “How would you feel about this if it were a democrat?” Because they either have to admit they are partisan or have to admit they are ok with the president breaking the law.

exactly right. It’s funny and sad watching them twist themselves into a pretzel trying to debate around the issue but they are both, partisan and only care about breaking the law when it’s the other side

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

He’s shown why republicans don’t want to answer the question, “How would you feel about this if it were a democrat?” Because they either have to admit they are partisan or have to admit they are ok with the president breaking the law.

I ask difficult, trapping questions.
None dare make an attempt on Truth Mountain

 

[bobgeese]

He’s shown why republicans don’t want to answer the question, “How would you feel about this if it were a democrat?” Because they either have to admit they are partisan or have to admit they are ok with the president breaking the law.

exactly right. It’s funny and sad watching them twist themselves into a pretzel trying to debate around the issue but they are both, partisan and only care about breaking the law when it’s the other side

You dumbasses realize they literally just did this to trump in the last election.


Do you think Mifsud and Downer just sent themselves to meet with GP?

Did you think Page was kidding when she said POTUS wants to know everything?



So, no. I don’t expect you’ll find many on the right are against this. Democrats set the precedent.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I this k if this was the first time Dems had tried to get him impeached, I might be paying attention. But this is like the sixth time.

There comes a point you have to just tune iut the losers who are still trying to get a 3 year old election overturned.

The election isn't being overturned. The President is being held accountable for his actions.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

The election isn't being overturned. The President is being held accountable for his actions.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

The election isn't being overturned. The President is being held accountable for his actions.

We'll see. You'd think you guys would have learned about spiking the football before you get to the end zone by now.

 

[bobgeese]

The President is being held accountable for his actions.

I agree, Trump will be re-elected.

 

[MikeMcMann]

What Obama did was just as bad and you don't care. Take off your goggles too.

What exactly is it you think Obama did?

 

[MikeMcMann]

Let's see what they uncover when they search that code word classified system for inappropriate inclusions. Should be paydirt. There are people that chuckle about us having a President that's like a character out of The Godfather.

Is there any reason you have seen that Congress will be given access to those?

I would think there would have to be some indication and evidence of a crime, not just suspicions?

The WB complaint gave evidence on the Ukraine call so that was arguably fair game but I don't see the broader allowance unless there is very specific underlying reason.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

exactly right. It’s funny and sad watching them twist themselves into a pretzel trying to debate around the issue but they are both, partisan and only care about breaking the law when it’s the other side

So are you going to answer the question that I asked you about enforcing this FEC law?

 

[trident]

Everyone ITT just take a moment take a breath and come here

Ok. Breathe.

Now resume