Trump's Russian Collusion

[Peter Brown]

Pete, can you explain why the impeachment of DJT is “specious”?

Sure. Trump’s perma-haters, some of whom apparently used to play lacrosse and who can’t breathe without considering Trump’s impact on each breath, misstate Trump’s boneheaded coarseness (Russia! Ukraine! Foundation! Epstein! Access Hollywood! Charlottesville! Trump Hotel! Dishwashers!) and twist it to high crimes. After the Mueller Report, us normals mistakenly thought the foaming opposition would subside some. What happened instead is the neverTrump crowd became more hysterical, hence Ukraine!

It’s not just me, but a ton of people feel the impeachment circus is simply people mad they lost an election, getting madder the more thus guy succeeds.

+1 PB

Perfect. Thanks. Completely fact- and law-free answer, applauded by the Great Moderate. Really perfect.

Perfect. Thanks. Completely incoherent reply to a rather straightforward answer from me.

If you bang the anti-Trump drum long and loud enough, surely rational people will flock to your position. Noise is a winning strategy always.

[seacoaster]

Your answer was, forgive me, completely fatuous.

Pete, is it OK for the President to use funds appropriated by the Congress as a carrot to get electoral assistance from a foreign government in the form of a publicly-announced investigation of an opponent or political rival?

Yes or no, then explain. Or move on. Whatever.

[old salt]

...is it OK for the President to use funds appropriated by the Congress as a carrot to get electoral assistance from a foreign government in the form of a publicly-announced investigation of an opponent or political rival?

If the basis for the investigation has merit, on it's own, absent political or electoral consideration,
& the carrot is not ultimately withheld, then (imho) yes.

Being a political candidate does not carry immunity from scrutiny.

[seacoaster]

...is it OK for the President to use funds appropriated by the Congress as a carrot to get electoral assistance from a foreign government in the form of a publicly-announced investigation of an opponent or political rival?

If the basis for the investigation has merit, on it's own, absent political or electoral consideration,
& the carrot is not ultimately withheld, then (imho) yes.

Being a political candidate does not carry immunity from scrutiny.

I think I understood this was your position, which seems manufactured to slide Trump past his malfeasance. I agree -- being a political candidate invites scrutiny. That's fine. But allowing the incumbent to use the levers and powers of high office -- and the threat of withholding aid or recognition -- to euchre a promise of even manufactured dirt, is fraught with the opportunity for misdeeds and an invitation to chaos and lawlessness. I appreciate the answer -- I really do -- but I think you're completely wrong. And that often happens when you approach these things in an outcome-determinative way: pre-mapping your argument to the end result that you want.

[old salt]

...is it OK for the President to use funds appropriated by the Congress as a carrot to get electoral assistance from a foreign government in the form of a publicly-announced investigation of an opponent or political rival?

If the basis for the investigation has merit, on it's own, absent political or electoral consideration,
& the carrot is not ultimately withheld, then (imho) yes.

Being a political candidate does not carry immunity from scrutiny.

I think I understood this was your position, which seems manufactured to slide Trump past his malfeasance. I agree -- being a political candidate invites scrutiny. That's fine. But allowing the incumbent to use the levers and powers of high office -- and the threat of withholding aid or recognition -- to euchre a promise of even manufactured dirt, is fraught with the opportunity for misdeeds and an invitation to chaos and lawlessness. I appreciate the answer -- I really do -- but I think you're completely wrong. And that often happens when you approach these things in an outcome-determinative way: pre-mapping your argument to the end result that you want.

The outcome or end result I seek, is to not establish a precedent for using the impeachment process as a Parliamentary vote of no confidence, or as a recall process to reverse a national election.

Absent provable " high crimes or misdemeanors ", I'm content to allow our govt to function as it has in the past & allow the voters to decide at the next election.

...& before you bring it up, I felt the same way in 1999, when there was hard evidence of actual criminal activity. I felt it did not merit impeachment then, either. ...& in '74, I felt Nixon needed to leave office, was relieved when he resigned & agreed with Ford's decision to pardon him.

[Peter Brown]

Your answer was, forgive me, completely fatuous.

Pete, is it OK for the President to use funds appropriated by the Congress as a carrot to get electoral assistance from a foreign government in the form of a publicly-announced investigation of an opponent or political rival?

Yes or no, then explain. Or move on. Whatever.

Why would anyone debate a faulty premise? You want someone to accept your claim of obvious malfeasance, by accepting that Trump did what you claim he did. But I don’t agree he did (there are about 60,000,000+ more like me, too).

In a vacuum, what you posit would be unethical at best. But we both know what you’re really claiming. Don’t we?

I’ll ask a more relevant hypothetical. When Trump is cleared (as he will be), what’s your next basis for impeachment?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Your answer was, forgive me, completely fatuous.

Pete, is it OK for the President to use funds appropriated by the Congress as a carrot to get electoral assistance from a foreign government in the form of a publicly-announced investigation of an opponent or political rival?

Yes or no, then explain. Or move on. Whatever.

Why would anyone debate a faulty premise? You want someone to accept your claim of obvious malfeasance, by accepting that Trump did what you claim he did. But I don’t agree he did (there are about 60,000,000+ more like me, too).

In a vacuum, what you posit would be unethical at best. But we both know what you’re really claiming. Don’t we?

I’ll ask a more relevant hypothetical.that When Trump is cleared (as he will be), what’s your next basis for impeachment?

Didn’t I just read yesterday that Trump broke law or was that a different law?

[a fan]

Sure. Obama's perma-haters, some of whom apparently used to play lacrosse and who can’t breathe without considering Trump’s impact on each breath, misstate Obama’s teleprompter speeches (Socialist!, Left Iraq too soon! America-hater!) and twist it to high crimes. After it turned out Obamacare wasn't the end of the world, us normals mistakenly thought the foaming opposition would subside some. What happened instead is the neverObama crowd became more hysterical, hence Benghazi!

It’s not just me, but a ton of people feel the Benghazi circus is simply people mad they lost an election, getting madder the more thus guy succeeds.

+1 PB

Fixed. Keep pretending like this has never happened before, and we should stop being so mean to Trumpy-wumpy.

Tech can pretend that the righties on the Water Cooler were calm, cool, evenhanded philosophers during Obama's reign all he likes. Those of us who were there saw 8 years of foaming at the mouth at everything Obama said, did, and in same cases what Obama wore. It was all wrong. All of it.

And no one was stupid enough to claim "your hatred of Obama is driving voters to vote for him".

Posters here, on the other hand, can list a ton of things Trump has done that we like. But that doesn't mean we like it all, and and sure as *hit doesn't mean we think using the power of the Presidency to go after a political rival is ok.

You guys lost your *hit over the IRS scandal, as did I, remember? And yet now you're telling us that using the power of your government office to go after a political enemy just ain't that big of a deal....and now you're trying to sell us that you think Lerner and the IRS were "just doing their job, so what's the big deal?"

Riiiiiight.

[a fan]

Why would anyone debate a faulty premise? You want someone to accept your claim of obvious malfeasance, by accepting that Trump did what you claim he did.

Trump told you what he did. So did his personal lawyer.

[jhu72]

Your answer was, forgive me, completely fatuous.

Pete, is it OK for the President to use funds appropriated by the Congress as a carrot to get electoral assistance from a foreign government in the form of a publicly-announced investigation of an opponent or political rival?

Yes or no, then explain. Or move on. Whatever.

Why would anyone debate a faulty premise? You want someone to accept your claim of obvious malfeasance, by accepting that Trump did what you claim he did. But I don’t agree he did (there are about 60,000,000+ more like me, too).

In a vacuum, what you posit would be unethical at best. But we both know what you’re really claiming. Don’t we?

I’ll ask a more relevant hypothetical.that When Trump is cleared (as he will be), what’s your next basis for impeachment?

Didn’t I just read yesterday that Trump broke law or was that a different law?

Totally different person. Peanut Butters didn't know him.

[MDlaxfan76]

Same thing?

GG, most certainly not. Trump has redefined what it means to be corrupt. With this said, the speaking engagements for Bill (and Hillary), the donations to The Clinton Fund, etc., all while Hillary was SoS, smells funny. similar to her erased hard drive, it's not prosecutable (or, I believe, she would've been prosecuted) but it most certainly smells funny. My only point being that three-fold: most, if not all, politicians are figuratively smelly, Trump smells worse than any politician in the US of A, and, if for no other reason than he's the POTUS, he should be called out by *all* Americans. Even the tribal people who are being tribal because the other side is being tribal...

True, lots of "smelly" to go around.

And sometimes not only stinks, a politician does something provably illegal.
Some go to jail. As they should.

I'd simply agree with ggait, even if only in this narrow comparison of foundations, one admitted to illegal acts, the other has never been indicted for such.

I'd go further and say, that while I think the Clintons' behavior around speeches etc was unethical, unseemly, "smelly", that pales in comparison to what Trump has provably done. And my hunch is that when the dust fully settles, there will be much more proven.

I doubt we'll see that with the Clintons, though I wouldn't be bothered if something illegal was actually found.

[Peter Brown]

Clinton and Trump charities both were investigated.

No actions taken against the Clinton one.

Trump one was shut down, paid a big fine, Trump admitted wrong doing, Trump and his kids are restricted/banned from future involvement with charities.

Same thing?

Much worse with Clinton. Fortunately for them, they had great advisors, friends, and lawyers who taught them how to keep corruption legal and allow posters like those here defend them! Trump has always acted on his own, hence stupid and naked.

Trump’s foundation, as shaky as it was, was a Two “Million” dollar fiasco. Illegal and all, it’s chump change compared to Clinton.

Clinton’s Foundation is a Two BILLION dollar payola scheme which continues to this day. In the Private Jet charter world, everyone knows this customer...they pay well and they pay often. Amazing how hunger/Malaria/poverty foundations need so much private jets! Who knew poverty paid so well! Two million versus two billion.

Orange man bad though.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Clinton and Trump charities both were investigated.

No actions taken against the Clinton one.

Trump one was shut down, paid a big fine, Trump admitted wrong doing, Trump and his kids are restricted/banned from future involvement with charities.

Same thing?

Much worse with Clinton. Fortunately for them, they had great advisors, friends, and lawyers who taught them how to keep corruption legal and allow posters like those here defend them! Trump has always acted on his own, hence stupid and naked.

Trump’s foundation, as shaky as it was, was a Two “Million” dollar fiasco. Illegal and all, it’s chump change compared to Clinton.

Clinton’s Foundation is a Two BILLION dollar payola scheme which continues to this day. In the Private Jet charter world, everyone knows this customer...they pay well and they pay often. Amazing how hunger/Malaria/poverty foundations need so much private jets! Who knew poverty paid so well! Two million versus two billion.

Orange man bad though.

Orange man was found guilty of running a fraudulent charity. That is bad.

[a fan]

Orange man bad though

Trump's charity is shut down because of corruption. And your reaction is that we must be insane to criticize this. Who the F do you know that had their charity shut down for corruption?

As if this is just no big deal, and just another day in the city. "Oh, I know a guy who had FIVE charities that we shut down for fraud. So really, Trump's fraud is just no bid deal". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I LOVE that you pretend to hate government. And yet somehow, magically, the head of the US Federal Government can do no wrong in your eyes.

That's quite the little world you've concocted for yourself. Nicely done.

[Peter Brown]

Orange man bad though

Trump's charity is shut down because of corruption. And your reaction is that we must be insane to criticize this. Who the F do you know that had their charity shut down for corruption?

As if this is just no big deal, and just another day in the city. "Oh, I know a guy who had FIVE charities that we shut down for fraud. So really, Trump's fraud is just no bid deal". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I LOVE that you pretend to hate government. And yet somehow, magically, the head of the US Federal Government can do no wrong in your eyes.

That's quite the little world you've concocted for yourself. Nicely done.

I’m fairly sure I said Trumps foundation was “illegal”. You can go back and verify that claim. I also said if we are comparing apples, his fraud doesn’t come within a couple universes of Clinton’s. Clinton simply was smarter with better lawyers. Trump is a small town hustler. The Clinton’s are the OG’s.

But hey, orange man bad and all that. Two million versus two billion.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Orange man bad though

Trump's charity is shut down because of corruption. And your reaction is that we must be insane to criticize this. Who the F do you know that had their charity shut down for corruption?

As if this is just no big deal, and just another day in the city. "Oh, I know a guy who had FIVE charities that we shut down for fraud. So really, Trump's fraud is just no bid deal". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I LOVE that you pretend to hate government. And yet somehow, magically, the head of the US Federal Government can do no wrong in your eyes.

That's quite the little world you've concocted for yourself. Nicely done.

I’m fairly sure I said Trumps foundation was “illegal”. You can go back and verify that claim. I also said if we are comparing apples, his fraud doesn’t come within a couple universes of Clinton’s. Clinton simply was smarter with better lawyers. Trump is a small town hustler. The Clinton’s are the OG’s.

But hey, orange man bad and all that. Two million versus two billion.

What was the fraud at the Clinton Foundation? Bigger dollars bigger fraud. How bad was it? Post the link whenever you can.

[a fan]

If the basis for the investigation has merit, on it's own, absent political or electoral consideration,
& the carrot is not ultimately withheld, then (imho) yes.

Being a political candidate does not carry immunity from scrutiny.

That means Obama's IRS scandal was fine with you. You realize that, yes?

[old salt]

If the basis for the investigation has merit, on it's own, absent political or electoral consideration,
& the carrot is not ultimately withheld, then (imho) yes.

Being a political candidate does not carry immunity from scrutiny.

That means Obama's IRS scandal was fine with you. You realize that, yes?

I don't ever remember what it was. ...& please God, don't recount it for us.
Was he impeached over it ?

[ToastDunk]

Orange man bad though

Trump's charity is shut down because of corruption. And your reaction is that we must be insane to criticize this. Who the F do you know that had their charity shut down for corruption?

As if this is just no big deal, and just another day in the city. "Oh, I know a guy who had FIVE charities that we shut down for fraud. So really, Trump's fraud is just no bid deal". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I LOVE that you pretend to hate government. And yet somehow, magically, the head of the US Federal Government can do no wrong in your eyes.

That's quite the little world you've concocted for yourself. Nicely done.

I’m fairly sure I said Trumps foundation was “illegal”. You can go back and verify that claim. I also said if we are comparing apples, his fraud doesn’t come within a couple universes of Clinton’s. Clinton simply was smarter with better lawyers. Trump is a small town hustler. The Clinton’s are the OG’s.

But hey, orange man bad and all that. Two million versus two billion.

What was the fraud at the Clinton Foundation? Bigger dollars bigger fraud. How bad was it? Post the link whenever you can.

Is there a separate Board where we're discussing the Trump U fraud. How much fraud surrounding one person before we consider it a pattern. Remember that $4M Trump fundraiser for veterans where the money was finally allocated a year later only after the WaPo reported on it? Technically "potential" fraud I guess.

[a fan]

I don't ever remember what it was. ...& please God, don't recount it for us.
Was he impeached over it ?

Impeachment is a separate discussion. You were asked if you were ok with Trump's actions. You said you were.

And since you asked me not to recount the IRS scandal?

Conversation over, and have a nice weekend, I guess....