billsfan89 Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: Trump asked him to take a call from Guliani and/or Barr. Trump broke no law. This is about corruption and Trump has every right to find out about it, especially if we are sending them money. You cannot ask a foreign government for an item of value for political gain. That's what he did. Trump could have asked Congress or the Justice department to look into the matter but he wanted Ukranian resources on the matter and used his position as president to do so that's illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: You cannot ask a foreign government for an item of value for political gain. That's what he did. Trump could have asked Congress or the Justice department to look into the matter but he wanted Ukranian resources on the matter and used his position as president to do so that's illegal. I'm losing my patience with you. His call was within the course of his duties. It's only for political gain because you and the Adam Schiffs of this world want to look at it that way. Happenings in Ukraine were meant to affect our 2016 election. Happenings in Ukraine point to the Biden family's corruption. That's why Trump wanted Ukraine to look into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: You cannot ask a foreign government for an item of value for political gain. That's what he did. Trump could have asked Congress or the Justice department to look into the matter but he wanted Ukranian resources on the matter and used his position as president to do so that's illegal. The implication of that being that you're immune from prosecution simply by running for office. And don't be completely disingenuous...if Trump had asked the Justice Department to take the lead on this, you'd be going just as ballistic over it. Just be honest and admit that your judgement of "wrongdoing" is based solely on party politics. 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: I'm losing my patience with you. His call was within the course of his duties. It's only for political gain because you and the Adam Schiffs of this world want to look at it that way. Happenings in Ukraine were meant to affect our 2016 election. Happenings in Ukraine point to the Biden family's corruption. That's why Trump wanted Ukraine to look into it. The unfortunate part of that argument is that the US doesn't quite have the jurisdiction over influence peddling, coercion, and corruption in another country. It's Ukraine's justice system that was coerced by Biden. It's not the jurisdiction of the US. The exception being if it's a matter of intelligence and cooperation concerning such. And I'll ask again, but more rhetorically this time: why does the ICIG have oversight over this? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 15 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: You cannot ask a foreign government for an item of value for political gain. That's what he did. Trump could have asked Congress or the Justice department to look into the matter but he wanted Ukranian resources on the matter and used his position as president to do so that's illegal. 5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: I'm losing my patience with you. His call was within the course of his duties. It's only for political gain because you and the Adam Schiffs of this world want to look at it that way. Happenings in Ukraine were meant to affect our 2016 election. Happenings in Ukraine point to the Biden family's corruption. That's why Trump wanted Ukraine to look into it. It's amazing how two people can interpret a conversation completely differently based off what they think of the person on one end of the telephone line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: It's amazing how two people can interpret a conversation completely differently based off what they think of the person on one end of the telephone line. Not really. They're both interpreting through their preconceived notions, which are diametrically opposed. Plus, they're both nitwits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 13 minutes ago, DC Tom said: The implication of that being that you're immune from prosecution simply by running for office. And don't be completely disingenuous...if Trump had asked the Justice Department to take the lead on this, you'd be going just as ballistic over it. Just be honest and admit that your judgement of "wrongdoing" is based solely on party politics. First off I never implied that running for office makes you immune from prosecution. My point was that by the letter of the law what Trump did was illegal. It does not matter if what he was investigating was valid or not. If the charges of corruption are legit and there was a justification for it I honestly wouldn't care if he asked the justice department to look into it. I really try not to be a partisan hack mainly because the Dems outside of a few old school FDR types only virtue is being less ***** than the GOP. It would in my mind be more so about the validity of the case. My take isn't that Trump should be thrown out of office for this as it currently stands. My take is that by the letter of the law what Trump did was illegal. Bill Clinton lied under oath thus doing something illegal but was and should not have been thrown out of office. My stance is more so that this needs to be investigated further and then we can make a decision as to if not this warrants more serious trial by the Senate. However you simply cannot say with any legitimacy that what Trump did was not illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: First off I never implied that running for office makes you immune from prosecution. My point was that by the letter of the law what Trump did was illegal. It does not matter if what he was investigating was valid or not. If the charges of corruption are legit and there was a justification for it I honestly wouldn't care if he asked the justice department to look into it. I really try not to be a partisan hack mainly because the Dems outside of a few old school FDR types only virtue is being less ***** than the GOP. It would in my mind be more so about the validity of the case. My take isn't that Trump should be thrown out of office for this as it currently stands. My take is that by the letter of the law what Trump did was illegal. Bill Clinton lied under oath thus doing something illegal but was and should not have been thrown out of office. My stance is more so that this needs to be investigated further and then we can make a decision as to if not this warrants more serious trial by the Senate. However you simply cannot say with any legitimacy that what Trump did was not illegal. What law did he break? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 10 minutes ago, DC Tom said: The implication of that being that you're immune from prosecution simply by running for office. And don't be completely disingenuous...if Trump had asked the Justice Department to take the lead on this, you'd be going just as ballistic over it. Just be honest and admit that your judgement of "wrongdoing" is based solely on party politics. The unfortunate part of that argument is that the US doesn't quite have the jurisdiction over influence peddling, coercion, and corruption in another country. It's Ukraine's justice system that was coerced by Biden. It's not the jurisdiction of the US. The exception being if it's a matter of intelligence and cooperation concerning such. And I'll ask again, but more rhetorically this time: why does the ICIG have oversight over this? Yes, but Biden could be brought up on charges here for using his office to coerce another country for personal gain. I believe that the ICIG is limited to oversight of just the IC, not anywhere else in the executive branch. The Rose Law Firm lawyer who is representing the so called whistleblower is deeply involved in whistleblower issues and the IC. I wouldn't be surprised if he auditioned whistleblowers to keep the Left's opposition to Trump alive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 Just now, Rob's House said: What law did he break? He won the 2016 election 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Rob's House said: What law did he break? he’s misinterpreting a law to fit his beliefs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: First off I never implied that running for office makes you immune from prosecution. My point was that by the letter of the law what Trump did was illegal. It does not matter if what he was investigating was valid or not. Really now. Which "law" did he break the letter of? How did he break the "law"? I only ask the second question as the transcript is pretty damned clear he didn't "coerce" or promise/threaten anything. Don't get me wrong, if you want to play fantasy-impeachment, go for it. Just don't get upset when the reality of petty partisan stupidity smacks you right in the face yet again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 10 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Not really. They're both interpreting through their preconceived notions, which are diametrically opposed. Plus, they're both nitwits. First of all, fvck you. As far as nitwits go, yes he's the nit and I'm the wit. Glad you noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Really now. Which "law" did he break the letter of? How did he break the "law"? I only ask the second question as the transcript is pretty damned clear he didn't "coerce" or promise/threaten anything. Don't get me wrong, if you want to play fantasy-impeachment, go for it. Just don't get upset when the reality of petty partisan stupidity smacks you right in the face yet again. 1 minute ago, Bray Wyatt said: 3 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Really now. Which "law" did he break the letter of? How did he break the "law"? I only ask the second question as the transcript is pretty damned clear he didn't "coerce" or promise/threaten anything. Don't get me wrong, if you want to play fantasy-impeachment, go for it. Just don't get upset when the reality of petty partisan stupidity smacks you right in the face yet again. I don’t remember which one exactly, something about receiving something of value for political gain, was brought up before in an other matter about trump before. Edit: stupid iPhone Edited September 26, 2019 by Bray Wyatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 23 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: First off I never implied that running for office makes you immune from prosecution. My point was that by the letter of the law what Trump did was illegal. It does not matter if what he was investigating was valid or not. If the charges of corruption are legit and there was a justification for it I honestly wouldn't care if he asked the justice department to look into it. I really try not to be a partisan hack mainly because the Dems outside of a few old school FDR types only virtue is being less ***** than the GOP. It would in my mind be more so about the validity of the case. My take isn't that Trump should be thrown out of office for this as it currently stands. My take is that by the letter of the law what Trump did was illegal. Bill Clinton lied under oath thus doing something illegal but was and should not have been thrown out of office. My stance is more so that this needs to be investigated further and then we can make a decision as to if not this warrants more serious trial by the Senate. However you simply cannot say with any legitimacy that what Trump did was not illegal. What law did Trump break on that call? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 20 minutes ago, Rob's House said: What law did he break? Asking a foreign government for a political favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Asking a foreign government for a political favor. What's the code section? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 Just now, billsfan89 said: Asking a foreign government for a political favor. Ha. Ok. Got it. Dem Playbook: 1) use your political position and influence to enrich your family through foreign governments and foreign corporations 2) call any investigation into said corruption a crime, especially if it’s being done by an opposition party 3) fire up the doublespeak department of truth (MSM) to obfuscate the obvious 4) when that doesn’t work, wait a few weeks, rinse, repeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 8 minutes ago, Rob's House said: What's the code section? “the intangible right of honest services.” 18 U.S.C. § 1346. The theory is that by performing an official act in exchange for personal gain, a public official defrauds his constituents of his honest services Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts