Trump's Russian Collusion

[Bandito]

Bandito --

According to a survey that came out the other day, 55% of Republicans for whom Fox News is their primary news source say there is nothing Trump could do to lose their approval.

Are you part of the 55% by any chance? Asking for a friend.

You’re part of the population who voted for Hillary. Shows how much you know about anything including politics. For folks who predicted Trumps initial win in 2016, they’re predicting another large electoral victory in 2020. You’re falling for the exact trap that got you and your pathetic ilk who believed Hillary would crush Trump. Keep believing bogus polls. Trump won’t lose in 2020. He’s waaaaay ahead of his pace from 2016. It’s remarkable to see given the media’s constant attack on him. Over 95% of coverage of Trump is negative. Most Americans are waking up the the Democrats Bs and fake news media. Blacks and Hispanics are flocking to him in droves. Your party will be DONE after 2020. Losing seems to be a theme you enjoy. Get used to it

So in other words, yes. There's nothing that Trump could ever do that would change your support for him. Thanks for confirming.

Trump hasn’t done anything wrong. You think he has. Facts over feelings. Facts say you’re wrong and I’m right. Sucks to be this wrong doesn’t it? How’s it feel to lose?

[tech37]

So within the context of the entire conversation, toward the end he brought up Biden. You want to impeach a sitting POTUS over this? If so, IMO you're interpretation of the discussion is incredibly biased.

You must not be paying attention to this story. You can throw away the transcripts and throw the whistleblower off a bridge. You don't need them.

And the reason you don't need them (I have no idea how you missed this), is that Trump told the world on live TV that yes, he asked the Ukrainian President to investigate his political enemy, Joe Biden. That's illegal. FEC, letter of the law.

The reason so many of are shaking our heads is that it is incomprehensible to us that you (and others) don't understand what an insane abuse of power that is. And we have NO CHOICE but to impeach Trump. Because if we don't? It is now open season on political enemies.

This isn't bias talking. Bias is looking the other way because you can't stand Rachel Maddow.

Example that is an exact parallel with a lesser player? Remember how mad I was at the Lerner IRS scandal? Jailtime. Someone should have served in jail for that. Why? For the same reason you can't make a call to the Ukrainian President like that: you can't use the power of office to go after your political enemies. That's Nixonian. Or Soviet. Or DDR.


Look. This impeachment----just the attempt-----is stalling a excise tax extension that will cost me personally $500K cash next year. But I still believe we HAVE to impeach. You can't let a President go after enemies like that.

And as I explained to YouthAthletics: if Trump didn't mention Biden by name? I have zero-----zero-----problem with what Trump did.

But. That's not what happened. And here we are.

Thanks a fan but sorry...don't buy your argument. Those little concerns called context and intent have me giving the POTUS benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't want to see any president, let alone Trump, impeached for this sort of indiscretion. For me, impeachment is just way over the top in this case and should be reserved for truly high crimes & misdemeanors. IMO, this does not meet that standard. BTW, when one considers who the people are who are attempting to impeach, and with their dubious methods, I'm very comfortable with my position on it.

[old salt]

So I have a question. We impeached Clinton for allowing himself to be fellated by a young woman. Trump is being fellated by 40% of the population, mostly male, in plain sight. Should this not be an article of impeachment all by itself?

Clinton was impeached for being caught on tape suborning perjury & witness tampering, by private citizens who turned him in.
The Special Prosecutor law forced Starr to report it to the House.
That's why that law was allowed to expire.
Clinton decided to commit felonies to cover up his indiscretions, rather than own them.

[old salt]

Walker ?

My fault. Taylor....I always have to catch myself as I know a Bill Walker. What is your opinion of Bill Taylor’s testimony?

I know one too -- an A-7 pilot.
Taylor should have followed his wife's advice.

[njbill]

CU88, thanks for posting the Twitter link to the oral argument at the Second Circuit today.

Some of the comments at the oral argument point up to me what I think should be abundantly clear to anyone regardless of what side of the aisle you are on: the Supreme Court, not some back room Justice Department lawyer who writes legal opinions, should decide the extent to which a sitting president is subject to criminal process.

The Nixon and Clinton Justice Departments wrote opinions concluding that Nixon and Clinton could not be indicted. There was a lot of sentiment in the Nixon special prosecutor’s office and with Ken Starr‘s team that a sitting president could be indicted. At bottom, all of these were unsurprising advocates’ positions; each side made the arguments you would expect them to make.

By injecting this “the president can’t even be investigated” position into the current litigation, Trump may well precipitate a ruling from the courts on at least some of the issues pertinent to a president’s susceptibility to criminal process.

While this is a complicated subject, and well beyond the scope of a forum post, my own view is that I disagree with the long-standing DOJ position. The key underpinning of that position is that it would unduly interfere with a president’s job if he or she were to be indicted while in office. But the Constitution already allows the “interference” attendant to the impeachment process. Also the Supreme Court has ruled that a sitting president must participate in a civil trial and must produce records (the tapes) he possesses that are relevant to a criminal proceeding. I would agree a sitting president cannot constitutionally be incarcerated and that any jail term would need to be deferred until he or she left office. But to me the constitutional arguments against permitting a sitting president to be indicted and tried are outweighed by the precept that no man is above the law.

[old salt]

The solipsist-in-chief has cut both the State Department AND the Pentagon, out of inclusion in the process of Governing the United States.

not to overly pick nits, but I don't believe the State Department or the Pentagon are SUPPOSED to be part of governing the United States

Last I checked, they are supposed to operate under the direction of the president of the United States, who along with Congress, is supposed to govern the United States....

...only if our Charge d'Affaires of our Ukrainian Embassy approves.

[a fan]

Thanks a fan but sorry...don't buy your argument. Those little concerns called context and intent have me giving the POTUS benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't want to see any president, let alone Trump, impeached for this sort of indiscretion.

We'll have this conversation again when the next President declares open season on his/her politician opponents, and uses the power of the office to take down his enemies.

Giving Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt?

So out of the blue Trump....after Biden declares he's running......Trump sees Jeezus, and decides to root out American corruption in one, and only one country?

BTW, when one considers who the people are who are attempting to impeach, and with their dubious methods, I'm very comfortable with my position on it.

That's Rush Limbaugh's argument: I hate Pelosi "therefore" what Trump did is ok.

[tech37]

OS, your acerbic wit is appreciated

[tech37]

Thanks a fan but sorry...don't buy your argument. Those little concerns called context and intent have me giving the POTUS benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't want to see any president, let alone Trump, impeached for this sort of indiscretion.

We'll have this conversation again when the next President declares open season on his/her politician opponents, and uses the power of the office to take down his enemies. That's not what happened here so why create the strawman?

Giving Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt? As I said, any POTUS in this case.

So out of the blue Trump....after Biden declares he's running......Trump sees Jeezus, and decides to root out American corruption in one, and only one country? Simply a concurrence a fan?

BTW, when one considers who the people are who are attempting to impeach, and with their dubious methods, I'm very comfortable with my position on it.

That's Rush Limbaugh's argument: I hate Pelosi "therefore" what Trump did is ok. I wouldn't know, don't listen to him.

[a fan]

We'll have this conversation again when the next President declares open season on his/her politician opponents, and uses the power of the office to take down his enemies. That's not what happened here so why create the strawman?

You want to split hairs? Ok. Let's split hairs.

You told all future Presidents that's it's ok to call any and all foreign leaders----including leaders in countries that we've been told are as corrupt as they come----and ask those leaders to "investigate" both those who are running against them in an election BY NAME, and the family members of those running in an election BY NAME.

Hard pass. That's insane. But here we are in 2019, millions of Americans think that this is ok.

The "I told you so" on this is on the train tracks, heading your way. What would Hillary do if you told her this is ok?

[tech37]

We'll have this conversation again when the next President declares open season on his/her politician opponents, and uses the power of the office to take down his enemies. That's not what happened here so why create the strawman?

You want to split hairs? Ok. Let's split hairs.

You told all future Presidents that's it's ok to call any and all foreign leaders----including leaders in countries that we've been told are as corrupt as they come----and ask those leaders to "investigate" both those who are running against them in an election BY NAME, and the family members of those running in an election BY NAME.

Hard pass. That's insane. But here we are in 2019, millions of Americans think that this is ok.

The "I told you so" on this is on the train tracks, heading your way. What would Hillary do if you told her this is ok?

Holy sh*t a fan, we disagree! The vortex is forming...let's end this now.

[seacoaster]

We'll have this conversation again when the next President declares open season on his/her politician opponents, and uses the power of the office to take down his enemies. That's not what happened here so why create the strawman?

You want to split hairs? Ok. Let's split hairs.

You told all future Presidents that's it's ok to call any and all foreign leaders----including leaders in countries that we've been told are as corrupt as they come----and ask those leaders to "investigate" both those who are running against them in an election BY NAME, and the family members of those running in an election BY NAME.

Hard pass. That's insane. But here we are in 2019, millions of Americans think that this is ok.

The "I told you so" on this is on the train tracks, heading your way. What would Hillary do if you told her this is ok?

Holy sh*t a fan, we disagree! The vortex is forming...let's end this now.

Agreed; it's embarrassing.

[tech37]

We'll have this conversation again when the next President declares open season on his/her politician opponents, and uses the power of the office to take down his enemies. That's not what happened here so why create the strawman?

You want to split hairs? Ok. Let's split hairs.

You told all future Presidents that's it's ok to call any and all foreign leaders----including leaders in countries that we've been told are as corrupt as they come----and ask those leaders to "investigate" both those who are running against them in an election BY NAME, and the family members of those running in an election BY NAME.

Hard pass. That's insane. But here we are in 2019, millions of Americans think that this is ok.

The "I told you so" on this is on the train tracks, heading your way. What would Hillary do if you told her this is ok?

Holy sh*t a fan, we disagree! The vortex is forming...let's end this now.

Agreed; it's embarrassing.

Right seacoaster, sometimes a fan just can't let things go.

[Peter Brown]

We'll have this conversation again when the next President declares open season on his/her politician opponents, and uses the power of the office to take down his enemies. That's not what happened here so why create the strawman?

You want to split hairs? Ok. Let's split hairs.

You told all future Presidents that's it's ok to call any and all foreign leaders----including leaders in countries that we've been told are as corrupt as they come----and ask those leaders to "investigate" both those who are running against them in an election BY NAME, and the family members of those running in an election BY NAME.

Hard pass. That's insane. But here we are in 2019, millions of Americans think that this is ok.

The "I told you so" on this is on the train tracks, heading your way. What would Hillary do if you told her this is ok?

Holy sh*t a fan, we disagree! The vortex is forming...let's end this now.

lol

You won't see another POTUS like Trump in your lifetime. He came along because we deserved him, every last second of the insanity. You nominate Hillary, you deserve the outcome. Pain + reflection = Progress

If Trump loses in 2020, or exits in 2024, the next POTUS will not be like him, at all.

[a fan]

You put your stake in the ground tech37, and told us you think this behavior is ok.

That's fine, but that means you're ok with the next President doing it, too.

You want to call me holding you accountable for the consistency of your views "a vortex".....go right ahead.


I have let it go----all I was doing was making sure you understood what you were green lighting.

You're sure. We're all good. Let's move on!

[tech37]

We'll have this conversation again when the next President declares open season on his/her politician opponents, and uses the power of the office to take down his enemies. That's not what happened here so why create the strawman?

You want to split hairs? Ok. Let's split hairs.

You told all future Presidents that's it's ok to call any and all foreign leaders----including leaders in countries that we've been told are as corrupt as they come----and ask those leaders to "investigate" both those who are running against them in an election BY NAME, and the family members of those running in an election BY NAME.

Hard pass. That's insane. But here we are in 2019, millions of Americans think that this is ok.

The "I told you so" on this is on the train tracks, heading your way. What would Hillary do if you told her this is ok?

Holy sh*t a fan, we disagree! The vortex is forming...let's end this now.

lol

You won't see another POTUS like Trump in your lifetime. He came along because we deserved him, every last second of the insanity. You nominate Hillary, you deserve the outcome. Pain + reflection = Progress

If Trump loses in 2020, or exits in 2024, the next POTUS will not be like him, at all.

I agree PB. Some people worry that Trump has started some sort of downhill slide and succeeding POTUSs will be worse. I don't see that at all...he's an aberration.

[tech37]

You put your stake in the ground tech37, and told us you think this behavior is ok. Strawman...good bye

[foreverlax]

Geez, plenty of posters felt that after his apology tour, our standing in America would never be the same.

We need a thread to list all of things that are now ok, but weren't under BHO.

[a fan]

Splitting hairs again, tech? Fine.

I wouldn't want to see any president, let alone Trump, impeached for this sort of indiscretion

There. Direct quote. Every word is yours. This is your view, and your stake in the ground.

[Peter Brown]

I agree PB. Some people worry that Trump has started some sort of downhill slide and succeeding POTUSs will be worse. I don't see that at all...he's an aberration.

Yup.