Schiff lost his marbles

[Jim in CT]

trumps lawyer made an opening statement listing all the previous times that aid had been temporarily withheld, and no one cared.

Is there a law that says someone running for president, is immune from being investigated for anything?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

trumps lawyer made an opening statement listing all the previous times that aid had been temporarily withheld, and no one cared.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were those instances to hold up the aid done so that a person would receive a personal gain? And was the withholding of the aid done in secret like Trump and his admin has done?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Were those instances to hold up the aid done so that a person would receive a personal gain? And was the withholding of the aid done in secret like Trump and his admin has done?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes. Because everything a politician does (unless he is being term limited out) involves potential personal gain. Everything Obama did in hs first term, involved the potential for it to effect his chances of getting re elected. You could argue his decision to have Bin Laden killed (was that in his first term?) was done in the hopes it would help him get re elected, meaning it would help him keep a job paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

I'll ask again, you're saying that under no circumstances can a sitting POTUS ask for an investigation of a political rival, regardless of what the political rival does? The sitting POTUS can't ask for an investigation of anything that could help him get re elected?

And for the 50th time, if Trump got the investigation and it showed that Biden didn't do anything, Trump looks stupid for wasting everyone's time. Trump has every incentive not to ask for a baseless investigation.

When Hilary's campaign gave the Steele dossier to the DOJ to use to investigate the Trump campaign, that wasn't done in the hope that it would provide personal gain for Hilary?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

trumps lawyer made an opening statement listing all the previous times that aid had been temporarily withheld, and no one cared.

Is there a law that says someone running for president, is immune from being investigated for anything?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny You and other Trump fans heard the evidence and heard Trump ask Russia to hack Clinton and if China was listening to do the same and ask Ukraine to do him a favor against Biden on the perfect call.. but never ask 2016 17 or but late 18 when he saw a poll PS the aid wasn't held until guess when

AND YOU DON'T CARE

But but Carter Page

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Funny You and other Trump fans heard the evidence and heard Trump ask Russia to hack Clinton and if China was listening to do the same and ask Ukraine to do him a favor against Biden on the perfect call.. but never ask 2016 17 or but late 18 when he saw a poll PS the aid wasn't held until guess when

AND YOU DON'T CARE

But but Carter Page

it’s also interesting that democrats don’t care about the unethical
behavior revealed in the hacked emails, all that matters is who hacked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[fishgolf]

"What you’re pointing out is something they should focus on AFTER they hold him accountable for abuse of power, not instead!!!"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All I'm saying if the aid was so vital, why have a 10 or 11 month process to deliver it? If it was approved in August of 2018, why not write the check in January of 2019 if the need was so vital to the troops in the field, and our own Nat'l Sec? Focusing on the weeks that Trump held it up rather than the total timeline makes it a red herring, crime or not.
(btw, I didn't vote for Trump...)

[Ian]

Originally Posted by fishgolf

"What you’re pointing out is something they should focus on AFTER they hold him accountable for abuse of power, not instead!!!"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All I'm saying if the aid was so vital, why have a 10 or 11 month process to deliver it? If it was approved in August of 2018, why not write the check in January of 2019 if the need was so vital to the troops in the field, and our own Nat'l Sec? Focusing on the weeks that Trump held it up rather than the total timeline makes it a red herring, crime or not.
(btw, I didn't vote for Trump...)

You can say that it’s less important than it seems to be, but can’t really call it a red herring.

Regardless of the length of the delay: one hour, one day, one year, it’s about why he did it.

Personal gain through a power only granted to him by the office he holds.

That’s abuse of power, and then he repeatedly stood in the way of the constitutional checks and balances afforded to congress to hold him accountable for it.

This is pretty black and white, regardless of how much the Biden’s did coke with the Ukrainians.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

the entire left has lost their marbles...it was fun seeing team trump bend schiff and his managers over their knee and spank them in front of the Senate and on national tv yesterday....

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

the entire left has lost their marbles...it was fun seeing team trump bend schiff and his managers over their knee and spank them in front of the Senate and on national tv yesterday....

Those alternative facts are handy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

Personal gain through a power only granted to him by the office he holds.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the tenth time, if the biden’s were actually engaged in corruption, Trump can’t ask for
an investigation, because it would benefit him? So the Biden’s can rob a bank, and Trump can’t ask for
an investigation because that might help him?

As to personally benefitting from the office? The Clintons are worth hundreds of millions, and the Obamas just bought a $15 million vacation home. All thanks to the office they held. But it’s only an issue when a republican benefits from his office. Gimme a break.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

For the tenth time, if the biden’s were actually engaged in corruption, Trump can’t ask for
an investigation, because it would benefit him? So the Biden’s can rob a bank, and Trump can’t ask for
an investigation because that might help him?

Lets make it even more simple. Say Trump believes there’s evidence of corruption by any American in a foreign country. Does he enlist help from:

A) The FBI

or

B) Lev Parnas

Have fun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

For the tenth time, if the biden’s were actually engaged in corruption, Trump can’t ask for
an investigation, because it would benefit him? So the Biden’s can rob a bank, and Trump can’t ask for
an investigation because that might help him?

As to personally benefitting from the office? The Clintons are worth hundreds of millions, and the Obamas just bought a $15 million vacation home. All thanks to the office they held. But it’s only an issue when a republican benefits from his office. Gimme a break.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hmm, let me think how to respond about whether the Clintons and Obama benefited from being President after they left office versus how Trump is benefiting personally while in office??? Can anyone help me?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

For the tenth time, if the biden’s were actually engaged in corruption, Trump can’t ask for
an investigation, because it would benefit him? So the Biden’s can rob a bank, and Trump can’t ask for
an investigation because that might help him?

As to personally benefitting from the office? The Clintons are worth hundreds of millions, and the Obamas just bought a $15 million vacation home. All thanks to the office they held. But it’s only an issue when a republican benefits from his office. Gimme a break.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He has a justice department for that, and congress (which he held control of both houses for a stretch.) If this was about corruption, this was literally the worst way a president could go about getting it investigated. Bottom line is that it was illegal. You can’t argue that.

He got caught. Said there was no quid pro quo. Sondland SAT IN FRONT OF CONGRESS and said there was actually quid pro quo. They charged him with it. GAO confirmed it was illegal. Now we’re in the senate to decide what’s next.

Hey he most frustrating thing here is that he can be guilty of breaking the law and not removed from office. I wish people who don’t want him gone would just admit he broke the law. This drawn out argument backed by lies that he did nothing wrong is just hurting the institution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it’s also interesting that democrats don’t care about the unethical
behavior revealed in the hacked emails, all that matters is who hacked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this unethical behavior,, plotting against the socialist. That Republicans love to call socialist yet hope he gets the nomination chime in how unfairly he was treated as if they care. His nomination they hope will help them keep the White House, please spare me ... PS it was the Russians who hacked a US political party it should matter but again not to Trump fans who claim America 1st but that only applies to Trump and his supporters, the rest hate America anyway


Funny outrage over Dems being unethical

But Trumps behavior Republicans cant even use the word unethical out of fear ,

The use of the word criminal in a sentence would get them banished


"don’t care about the unethical
behavior revealed in the hacked emails, all that matters is who hacked them"

Do you hear yourself ? this is Trumps and the Republicans entire defense . Is built on your statement

All that matters is who did the telling ..... Whistleblower

[scottw]

lost marbles cause mindless babble syndrome....