Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1181787)

I said the he is ultimately not guilty of withholding the funds. The funds were delivered. If there is still some relatively small amount left, there may still be a reason for that. I don't know.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1181795)

Lots of people have gone been convicted for taking money "temporarily"

Of course Floridaman doesn't believe that attempting to get something for performing an official duty is a crime, or even something you shouldn't do. And you know: "say Norway"

Maybe that's why he is looking at pardoning Blagojevich.

“Lobbyists for a children’s hospital wanted Blagojevich to increase Medicaid reimbursement rates, which meant eight million dollars in revenue to the hospital, But he put out the word through intermediaries that he would only do it if he got fifty thousand dollars in campaign contributions. That quid quo pro was a violation of the Hobbs Act. With Trump, the quid pro quo is taxpayer money in return for political dirt, but the idea is the same.”

By the way, Blagojevich is currently serving time and not just for that.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1181801)

Trump didn't take any money.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1181828)

The ask is the crime and dirt on an opponent has value
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1181828)

The ask is the crime and dirt on an opponent has value
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1181860)

Asking for investigation of corruption is not a crime, and Hunter Biden was not running for President, and portraying a search for truth as a search for dirt is spin. What is obviously dirty is a corrupt corporation hiring someone with little, if any, qualifications, paying him more than just about anyone else at his corporate level in the company, in order to have some powerful insurance against an investigation into the company's corruption.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1181864)

You've made a lot of assumptions there.

Let's get this straight

We are really supposed to believe that Floridaman, who tolerates and even admires some of the most corrupt leaders in the world, suddenly got concerned about corruption just in time to demand an investigation of the Bidens?

Or that it’s a coincidence that the ONLY two corruption investigations Floridaman has ever demanded from a foreign country—a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election and an investigation of the Bidens—happen to correspond exactly to the baloney Floridaman dishes out at his campaign rallies?

And what about the fact that Floridaman didn’t even really demand an investigation, only a public announcement that one would be conducted? Isn’t that exactly how Trump got elected in the first place? Wasn’t Comey’s last-minute announcement of the reopening of a criminal investigation against Hillary Clinton exactly what handed Trump a comeback victory in 2016?

It worked once for Trump, so why would anybody doubt that he tried to use the same winning formula again, this time with Ukraine?

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1181869)

You've made a lot of assumptions there.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1181864)

You've made a lot of assumptions there.

Let's get this straight

We are really supposed to believe that Floridaman, who tolerates and even admires some of the most corrupt leaders in the world, suddenly got concerned about corruption just in time to demand an investigation of the Bidens?

It's an assumption that I think you're supposed to believe anything of the sort or anything else. It's an assumption that he asked only for an investigation of the Biden's. And that the investigation was about Hunter Biden's father as well as about him and Burisma. And that Trump "tolerates" somebody or anybody. And that he was only concerned "just in time."

Or that it’s a coincidence that the ONLY two corruption investigations Floridaman has ever demanded from a foreign country—a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election and an investigation of the Bidens—happen to correspond exactly to the baloney Floridaman dishes out at his campaign rallies?

You're assuming that the notion that Ukrainian interference has actually been "debunked" is absolutely true. Or, at least, that everyone is supposed to accept that it has. You're assuming the Floridaman dishes out baloney at his campaign rallies. Your assuming that I think you should see this all as coincidence. (I don't assume very much at all about what you think.)


And what about the fact that Floridaman didn’t even really demand an investigation, only a public announcement that one would be conducted? Isn’t that exactly how Trump got elected in the first place? Wasn’t Comey’s last-minute announcement of the reopening of a criminal investigation against Hillary Clinton exactly what handed Trump a comeback victory in 2016?

You're assuming that he "demanded" something. He did ask if Ukraine could "help us"--us being more than just him, but, I assume, our country. You're assuming that Comey did hand the victory to Trump.

It worked once for Trump, so why would anybody doubt that he tried to use the same winning formula again, this time with Ukraine?

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1181871)

No, very few

Ukraine got U.S. aid in 2017.

They got U.S. aid in 2018.

Then in 2019, Vice President Biden announced he was running for president, and all of a sudden President Trump held up the aid while asking Ukraine to investigate Biden.

This debunks the false argument that the president simply doesn't like foreign aid.

He gave Ukraine the aid before 2019.

He gave them the aid after getting caught.

The only difference earlier this year is that he knew he had leverage, and he used it for personal gain.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1181879)

You assume that Trump was using a formula. Everything you said was an assumption.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1181883)

And will be until the Senate trial, when unless McConnell conducts a sham trial and allows no testimony, we will see evidence.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1181891)

the case for impeachment is pathetically weak...why waste everyone's time?...though I am rooting for a long process with lot's of witnesses

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1181904)

Pretty good case for one that has been so thoroughly obstructed.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1181915)

he can deny the validity of an impeachment proceeding

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1181940)

If Trump were to offer a blanket pardon in advance to anybody who kills a member of the Democratic congressional leadership, that would not be a crime. If he were to knowingly and deliberately understate his income by $1,000 on his federal income-tax form in order to reduce his tax burden, that would. But the former would obviously be much stronger grounds for impeachment than the latter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1181983)

more stupidity

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1182126)

The Fox poll is 54-41 for impeachment. That’s a bigger margin than the Democrats’ victory margin in 2018. In other words, if I can put it this way, impeachment in 2019 is running a bit ahead of House Democrats in 2018.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device