Trump's Russian Collusion

[njbill]

old salt, the question of Trump’s motivation for withholding the aid is factual in nature. Did he withhold the aid for legitimate reasons, that is, to ensure Ukraine was adequately addressing corruption, or did he do so to gain leverage over Zelensky to coerce him into announcing an investigation of the Bidens? I think the facts amply demonstrate that it was the latter, but even if you think the issue is fairly debatable, the Senate should look at all available evidence, which includes relevant documents and witnesses.

Even if the aid was legally held up (which it wasn’t as the GAO has now ruled), Trump’s request that Ukraine announce an investigation of the Bidens (as opposed to all Ukrainian corruption) was entirely inappropriate because he was seeking to rig the 2020 election. The facts aren’t fairly in dispute about that. There is not one iota of evidence that Trump was interested in Ukrainian corruption in general.

[jhu72]

old salt, the question of Trump’s motivation for withholding the aid is factual in nature. Did he withhold the aid for legitimate reasons, that is, to ensure Ukraine was adequately addressing corruption, or did he do so to gain leverage over Zelensky to coerce him into announcing an investigation of the Bidens? I think the facts amply demonstrate that it was the latter, but even if you think the issue is fairly debatable, the Senate should look at all available evidence, which includes relevant documents and witnesses.

Even if the aid was legally held up (which it wasn’t as the GAO has now ruled), Trump’s request that Ukraine announce an investigation of the Bidens (as opposed to all Ukrainian corruption) was entirely inappropriate because he was seeking to rig the 2020 election. The facts aren’t fairly in dispute about that. There is not one iota of evidence that Trump was interested in Ukrainian corruption in general.

We both know the republicans do not have a leg to stand on in arguments based in fact and logic. Magical thinking and spin is what they have.

[a fan]

A five year old could cross examine Trump and demonstrate to those who don't have their head up Trump's *ss, and show that this had nothing to do with corruption.

For example: can anyone tell me why Trump didn't hold up the aid to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018? Nope.

And when Trump finally released the funds in 2019, does anyone have their made up reason as to what changed from when Trump first withheld it in July, until he released it 60 days later. "Suddenly" Ukraine isn't corrupt any more in the span of 60 days? Wow. Neat-o. Xmas miracle in Ukraine!!

How F-ing stupid are the Americans who are buying this nonsense?

While we're playing this "I'm too stupid to tie my own shoes" game, I'm now convinced that the Benghazi attack was 100% over a video.

If we're going to be a nation of morons, we might was well go all the way.

[Typical Lax Dad]

A five year old could cross examine Trump and demonstrate to those who don't have their head up Trump's *ss, and show that this had nothing to do with corruption.

For example: can anyone tell me why Trump didn't hold up the aid to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018? Nope.

And when Trump finally released the funds in 2019, does anyone have their made up reason as to what changed from when Trump first withheld it in July, until he released it 60 days later. "Suddenly" Ukraine isn't corrupt any more in the span of 60 days? Wow. Neat-o. Xmas miracle in Ukraine!!

How F-ing stupid are the Americans who are buying this nonsense?

While we're playing this "I'm too stupid to tie my own shoes" game, I'm now convinced that the Benghazi attack was 100% over a video.

If we're going to be a nation of morons, we might was well go all the way.

The Benghazi attacks were started by a video because the President said so. He changed his explanation because of FoxNews.

[a fan]

This is the heart of it.

The question at stake in the Senate trial is plain: Is the use of public funds as leverage to gain private, political benefits from a foreign government an impeachable abuse of presidential power? The matter is so simple that Trump’s Republican defenders are reduced to babbling incoherence in trying to avoid it. When asked whether Trump’s solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election was proper, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) responded, “Well, those are just statements, political. They make them all the time. . . . People do things. Things happen.”


All the dumb*ss Trump supporters think this is about Trump because they're too far gone to think in larger terms.

It's simple: do they want their future Presidents doing what's described above, or not?

The answer from them is a resounding yes. They don't think that this answer of theirs will have future consequences. They don't want to hear that they are making their leaders and their government MORE corrupt, because they think the story here is really about TrumpHaters. Or, of course, the horrible Dems.

You can't convince them otherwise. So my answer to this is: ok. You ASKED for more corruption. You don't get to blame anyone but yourselves when that's precisely what you get.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ziZ4_uBI1E

[foreverlax]

This is the heart of it.

The question at stake in the Senate trial is plain: Is the use of public funds as leverage to gain private, political benefits from a foreign government an impeachable abuse of presidential power? The matter is so simple that Trump’s Republican defenders are reduced to babbling incoherence in trying to avoid it. When asked whether Trump’s solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election was proper, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) responded, “Well, those are just statements, political. They make them all the time. . . . People do things. Things happen.”


All the dumb*ss Trump supporters think this is about Trump because they're too far gone to think in larger terms.

It's simple: do they want their future Presidents doing what's described above, or not?

The answer from them is a resounding yes. They don't think that this answer of theirs will have future consequences. They don't want to hear that they are making their leaders and their government MORE corrupt, because they think the story here is really about TrumpHaters. Or, of course, the horrible Dems.

You can't convince them otherwise. So my answer to this is: ok. You ASKED for more corruption. You don't get to blame anyone but yourselves when that's precisely what you get.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ziZ4_uBI1E

Of course it's ok...Trump wants USA companies to be able to bribe foreign officials to get business.

[jhu72]

A five year old could cross examine Trump and demonstrate to those who don't have their head up Trump's *ss, and show that this had nothing to do with corruption. -- other than Trump's own

For example: can anyone tell me why Trump didn't hold up the aid to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018? Nope.

And when Trump finally released the funds in 2019, does anyone have their made up reason as to what changed from when Trump first withheld it in July, until he released it 60 days later. "Suddenly" Ukraine isn't corrupt any more in the span of 60 days? Wow. Neat-o. Xmas miracle in Ukraine!!

How F-ing stupid are the Americans who are buying this nonsense?

While we're playing this "I'm too stupid to tie my own shoes" game, I'm now convinced that the Benghazi attack was 100% over a video.

If we're going to be a nation of morons, we might was well go all the way.

[a fan]

This is the heart of it.

The question at stake in the Senate trial is plain: Is the use of public funds as leverage to gain private, political benefits from a foreign government an impeachable abuse of presidential power? The matter is so simple that Trump’s Republican defenders are reduced to babbling incoherence in trying to avoid it. When asked whether Trump’s solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election was proper, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) responded, “Well, those are just statements, political. They make them all the time. . . . People do things. Things happen.”


All the dumb*ss Trump supporters think this is about Trump because they're too far gone to think in larger terms.

It's simple: do they want their future Presidents doing what's described above, or not?

The answer from them is a resounding yes. They don't think that this answer of theirs will have future consequences. They don't want to hear that they are making their leaders and their government MORE corrupt, because they think the story here is really about TrumpHaters. Or, of course, the horrible Dems.

You can't convince them otherwise. So my answer to this is: ok. You ASKED for more corruption. You don't get to blame anyone but yourselves when that's precisely what you get.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ziZ4_uBI1E

Of course it's ok...Trump wants USA companies to be able to bribe foreign officials to get business.

Pete thinks those are silly laws, and should be repealed.

Until, of course, his own business gets screwed by a competitor that's overjoyed to bribe their way to a successful business. Then he'll blame the lack of anti-bribery laws on Hillary Clinton.

[dislaxxic]

You keep pretending like you're too stupid to distinguish between the FBI doing their job, and a President ORDERING the FBI to investigate a political rival.

Pretending?

ummm...

..

[old salt]

It's politics as usual. Oh well.
It's only impeachable when a (D) ox is bring gored.

You think that a McConnell run Senate wouldn't impeach Obama if Obama told the world that he personally ordered the investigation into Trump's ties to Russia? And that you and FoxNation wouldn't be demanding impeachment if that happened.


Told ya, fellas. They think it's ok for Trump to do this because they think the Dems did it. Welcome to the TrumpEra.

Anything goes, "because" the Dems are bad.

Political dirty tricks, a la Stone, Black, Manafort, Atwater, Carville, Begala, Morris, Penn & countless others.
Obama used the NSC, FBI, IC, & 5 eyes allies.
HRC used the DNC, Fusion GPS, FBI (funding for Steele) & her friends in the State Dept.
Trump (the cheapskate outsider) used Rudy, Lev, Joe & Victoria.
...you get what you pay for.

[Kismet]

Sure thing Clouseau

[old salt]

old salt, the question of Trump’s motivation for withholding the aid is factual in nature. Trump's motivation was political Did he withhold the aid for legitimate reasons, that is, to ensure Ukraine was adequately addressing corruption, or did he do so to gain leverage over Zelensky to coerce him into announcing an investigation of the Bidens? All of the above I think the facts amply demonstrate that it was the latter, Both but even if you think the issue is fairly debatable, the Senate should look at all available evidence, which includes relevant documents and witnesses. The Senate should consider the evidence the House delivered from their investigation.

Even if the aid was legally held up (which it wasn’t as the GAO has now ruled GAO does not rule, they opine), Trump’s request that Ukraine announce an investigation of the Bidens (as opposed to all Ukrainian corruption) was entirely inappropriate because he was seeking to rig the 2020 election. Biden had the Ukraine portfolio for the Obama admin. He openly boasted about how he wielded his influence. The facts aren’t fairly in dispute about that. There is not one iota of evidence that Trump was interested in Ukrainian corruption in general.
Trump repeatedly complained about having to give foreign aid to corrupt countries & Ukraine in particular. He also complained about other allies not providing lethal military aid.

[old salt]

A five year old could cross examine Trump and demonstrate to those who don't have their head up Trump's *ss, and show that this had nothing to do with corruption. It's ALL about the Biden's obvious conflicts of interest & suspected influence peddling re. Ukraine.

For example: can anyone tell me why Trump didn't hold up the aid to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018? Nope.
Have you verified that Trump twice approved aid before ? I thought he only approved once prior.
He approved the first one while still under the Russia collusion investigation.
He couldn't say NO at the height of our anti-Russia hysteria.
He called Zelensky right after Muller's Weekend at Berni'e's performance.

And when Trump finally released the funds in 2019, does anyone have their made up reason as to what changed from when Trump first withheld it in July, until he released it 60 days later. "Suddenly" Ukraine isn't corrupt any more in the span of 60 days? Wow. Neat-o. Xmas miracle in Ukraine!!
The Interagency Process certified it & Amb Masha shut out all the corrupt Ukrainian officials.

How F-ing stupid are the Americans who are buying this nonsense?
Stupid enough to believe the interagency process that 3 times certified Ukraine to be corruption free enough to receive the aid BEFORE Zelensky was elected. You know -- those earnest civil servants who fed the whistleblower & so enthralled you with their impeachment hearing testimony.

While we're playing this "I'm too stupid to tie my own shoes" game, I'm now convinced that the Benghazi attack was 100% over a video.
Agree. You demonstrated your stupidity with your steadfast & enduring "stuff happens" defense.

If we're going to be a nation of morons, we might was well go all the way.
BREAKING NEWS : we already have. Witness this impeachment political campaign stunt.

[njbill]

old salt, the question of Trump’s motivation for withholding the aid is factual in nature. Trump's motivation was political Therefore unlawful. I agree. Did he withhold the aid for legitimate reasons, that is, to ensure Ukraine was adequately addressing corruption, or did he do so to gain leverage over Zelensky to coerce him into announcing an investigation of the Bidens? All of the above Except there is no evidence Trump was concerned about general Ukrainian corruption. I think the facts amply demonstrate that it was the latter, Both but even if you think the issue is fairly debatable, the Senate should look at all available evidence, which includes relevant documents and witnesses. The Senate should consider the evidence the House delivered from their investigation. In all or almost all prior impeachments, presidential or otherwise, additional evidence has been admitted to the trial in the Senate. That was the case in the two prior presidential impeachments. So that is the precedent which the Senate Republicans now are flouting.

Even if the aid was legally held up (which it wasn’t as the GAO has now ruled GAO does not rule, they opine), OK, if you don’t like the word “rule,” then “find” or “determine.” What they did is, legally, more than just “opine.”Trump’s request that Ukraine announce an investigation of the Bidens (as opposed to all Ukrainian corruption) was entirely inappropriate because he was seeking to rig the 2020 election. Biden had the Ukraine portfolio for the Obama admin. He openly boasted about how he wielded his influence. “Boast” is your loaded word. Unless you can show he did something improper or illegal, so what?The facts aren’t fairly in dispute about that. There is not one iota of evidence that Trump was interested in Ukrainian corruption in general.
Trump repeatedly complained about having to give foreign aid to corrupt countries & Ukraine in particular. He also complained about other allies not providing lethal military aid. Yes, he has complained about giving foreign aid and about the allies’ share of aid, but those complaints have not focused specifically on corrupt countries or Ukraine in particular.

[old salt]

Sure thing Clouseau

Paging Inspector Clouseau

[a fan]

Agree. You demonstrated your stupidity with your steadfast & enduring "stuff happens" defense.

I was right. Still am.

You think these events are preventable. Tell that to three dead Americans at the base in Kenya. Did they call for help and not get it? Did Trump tell the backups to stand down? Did they have backups available at all? If not, why? What did Trump know, and when did he know it? Didn't they know Kenya was dangerous? Then why didn't they close the base?

The answer to all of these questions is: neither you nor FoxNation gives a *hit, and have zero interest in the answers. Why? Because you can't blame Hillary for it, so why bother?

Wait, wait: can Hillary PROVE she wasn't in Kenya at the time of the attack?


Frankly, I'm shocked that the base was attacked at all. After all, your flawless Republicans are in charge, and was we have learned from you over the years, people only die overseas when Democrats are in the White House. So boy, this Kenya attack is a real head scratcher.

So yep, stuff happens.

[jhu72]

WaPo now reporting that all but 8 republicans want to just find Trump not guilty and move on. This according to Rand Paul.

[old salt]

Agree. You demonstrated your stupidity with your steadfast & enduring "stuff happens" defense.

I was right. Still am.

You think these events are preventable. Tell that to three dead Americans at the base in Kenya. Did they call for help and not get it? Did Trump tell the backups to stand down? Did they have backups available at all? If not, why? What did Trump know, and when did he know it? Didn't they know Kenya was dangerous? Then why didn't they close the base?

The answer to all of these questions is: neither you nor FoxNation gives a *hit, and have zero interest in the answers. Why? Because you can't blame Hillary for it, so why bother?

Wait, wait: can Hillary PROVE she wasn't in Kenya at the time of the attack?


Frankly, I'm shocked that the base was attacked at all. After all, your flawless Republicans are in charge, and was we have learned from you over the years, people only die overseas when Democrats are in the White House. So boy, this Kenya attack is a real head scratcher.

So yep, stuff happens.

More of your thoughtful analysis.
Were our Special Forces in Kenya setting up a campaign stop for Trump ?
Were they headed into Kenya, while all our allies were withdrawing ?
Were their requests for more security, in advance & in the moment, ignored ?

[a fan]

We. don't. know.

Get the point yet? Probably not.

A sawbuck says this attack was "preventable" via backseat Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Do you care? Nope.

[old salt]

We. don't. know.

Get the point yet? Probably not.

A sawbuck says this attack was "preventable" via backseat Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Do you care? Nope.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... -says.html

Anything's preventable. Leave the aircraft in the hangar & they won't crash. Get the pont yet ?