Glasswolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

I'm not sure what parrallel you're trying to draw?

- One example is an investigation into Russian Interference, Obstruction of Justice, and Trump's campaign involvement. Investigation led by Trump's DOJ and Rod R. (a Trump appointee). It was a legal investigation as I mentioned...

- Second example is a request from the President to investigate his political rival (no active investigation from DOJ) and to work with his personal lawyer who is also a part of his campaign. I seriously don't get how people don't see a problem with this.

---

I would argue that the investigation into Biden is an investigation into corruption by a american politician. Its not Trumps fault that Biden's kid got 50K for a job that he didn't understand at all and its not Trump's fault that Biden decided to brag on tape that he had would cut US aide it a prosecutor wasn't fired. I don't see how people have a problem with this

---

There were other countries siding with Biden on this issue. It wasn't just Biden.

---

What difference does that make?

You may have missed previous posts with the distinction that has been made by journalists that covered Ukraine that the Prosecutor in place was not doing enough to combat corruption.

That's why Biden, the US Government, Republican Senators, and other countries were all clamoring for his removal. I have provided multiple links in this thread regarding that POV but happy to find more if you don't think that holds water.

What a con-man. I'm amazed that Republicans continue to defend this President.

Glasswolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

I'm not sure what parrallel you're trying to draw?

- One example is an investigation into Russian Interference, Obstruction of Justice, and Trump's campaign involvement. Investigation led by Trump's DOJ and Rod R. (a Trump appointee). It was a legal investigation as I mentioned...

- Second example is a request from the President to investigate his political rival (no active investigation from DOJ) and to work with his personal lawyer who is also a part of his campaign. I seriously don't get how people don't see a problem with this.

---

I would argue that the investigation into Biden is an investigation into corruption by a american politician. Its not Trumps fault that Biden's kid got 50K for a job that he didn't understand at all and its not Trump's fault that Biden decided to brag on tape that he had would cut US aide it a prosecutor wasn't fired. I don't see how people have a problem with this

---

There were other countries siding with Biden on this issue. It wasn't just Biden.

---

What difference does that make?

---

It was a joint effort between countries. Biden didn't just do it on his own unlike the duly elected president

---

Fixed that for you

statefan91 said:

---

What a con-man. I'm amazed that Republicans continue to defend this President.

---

So i guess that your gonna skip the fact that Mulvany said that the resort was doing it at cost, which means that no one is making any money off the deal. Seems to be a pretty big fact to leave out of your complaint here.

Are you really trying to claim that the resort will not be making money on this? And do you really not have a problem with the President hosting a global event at his resort?

Weird that a failing resort would be selected. It's almost like a resort that's failing that needs money coming in could really benefit from a huge event like this...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-business-decline-florida-doral-resort-documents-anu-717-am-a8916076.html

Also, Trump's CoS just admitted that Ukraine's aid withholding was part of a quid pro quo.

statefan91 said:

---

Are you really trying to claim that the resort will not be making money on this? And do you really not have a problem with the President hosting a global event at his resort?

Weird that a failing resort would be selected. It's almost like a resort that's failing that needs money coming in could really benefit from a huge event like this...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-business-decline-florida-doral-resort-documents-anu-717-am-a8916076.html

Also, Trump's CoS just admitted that Ukraine's aid withholding was part of a quid pro quo.

---

Lol

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

What a con-man. I'm amazed that Republicans continue to defend this President.

---

So i guess that your gonna skip the fact that Mulvany said that the resort was doing it at cost, which means that no one is making any money off the deal. Seems to be a pretty big fact to leave out of your complaint here.

---

He also stated he did not have the exact dollar figures. You have to believe gullible is written on the ceiling to think the Trump Organization won't profit off this event.

It's clearly an Emoluments Clause violation, which I understand people don't care about. It's amazing how people pick and choose parts of the Constitution to wrap themselves around publicly, while completely ignoring other aspects (this is not directed at you cowboy).

This goes back to one of my earlier questions in this thread: is any crime POTUS commits impeachable? Or is there a Mendoza line? I would consider Emoluments a white collar crime - is that OK for POTUS to ignore? It is specifically written into the Constitution, so should that rise to "high crimes?" More generally, do we think it's OK to hold POTUS to a lower legal standard than everyone else in the nation?

So what would everyone's opinion be about a President Pence?

Apparently the Whitehouse confirmed this letter to the Turkish Leader is real.

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1184581368191311873?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1184581368191311873&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Freason.com%2F2019%2F10%2F17%2Ftrump-wishes-russia-luck-in-syria-as-u-s-bombs-its-own-bases-and-erdogan-scoffs-at-trumps-attempt-to-make-a-deal%2F

This isn't impeachable but its a complete embarrassment. He cannot handle foreign policy

IseWolf22 said:

---

Apparently the Whitehouse confirmed this letter to the Turkish Leader is real.

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1184581368191311873?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1184581368191311873&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Freason.com%2F2019%2F10%2F17%2Ftrump-wishes-russia-luck-in-syria-as-u-s-bombs-its-own-bases-and-erdogan-scoffs-at-trumps-attempt-to-make-a-deal%2F

This isn't impeachable but its a complete embarrassment. He cannot handle foreign policy

---

So at this point the White House hasn't released a transcript of the call and all signs point to a clear quid pro quo. Very strange how many Republicans want to go to the mat for this President.

PackBacker07 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

A question I have is can POTUS commit a crime but it not rise to the level of impeachment?

---

I wonder that myself. It states "high crimes and misdemeanors" but on reality it only matters what the opposing political party wants. With this situation now, IMO, it blows up Pandora's box and allows any party that isn't in power to scream and yell impeachment for anything. This will work about as well as Harry Reid changing the way voting is for supreme Court nominees and then the Dems screaming and yelling it ain't fair when it happens to them.

---

Yeah all this talk and bs has me thinking about this question, and not necessarily related to Trump. Is there a Mendoza line on criminality for impeachment? Or should any crime committed while holding the office be grounds for impeachment, no matter how small? It does state misdemeanors. Are we to brush that aside and go more towards "high crimes?" Who decides the definition of high crimes? And shouldn't this be expanded to all elected officials? (Maybe it already is and I am not aware?) A lot to ponder while the country goes to Hell and Guiliani grabs another whiskey.

---

Related:

This is a bit ridiculous. If these Republican members have an issue with not getting the information, they should take it up with the leaders of the committees from their party or get themselves on the committees.There are equal numbers of members from both parties on the committees so it's not like Republicans are getting shut out.

statefan91 said:

---

This is a bit ridiculous. If these Republican members have an issue with not getting the information, they should take it up with the leaders of the committees from their party or get themselves on the committees.There are equal numbers of members from both parties on the committees so it's not like Republicans are getting shut out.

---

About as ridiculous as the Dems reading the Muller report on the house floor multiple times but I guess ridiculous only applies to the party you don't like.

Glasswolf said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

This is a bit ridiculous. If these Republican members have an issue with not getting the information, they should take it up with the leaders of the committees from their party or get themselves on the committees.There are equal numbers of members from both parties on the committees so it's not like Republicans are getting shut out.

---

About as ridiculous as the Dems reading the Muller report on the house floor multiple times but I guess ridiculous only applies to the party you don't like.

---

Considering the Benghazi hearings and the Clinton Impeachment were held by the exact rules I'm not sure what Nunez and his Trump cronies are complaining about. There are members of the GOP on 3 committees that have oversight into this inquiry. Very few have chosen to show up.

Hey is a direct quote from one of Trump's main boot lickers, Trey Gowdy from the Benghazi hearings:

"In closed hearings held when questions asked by the panel deal with sensitive or classified information members have more time to ask questions and draw out constructive answers." -- Trey Gowdy

---

You just love the name calling lately my brother glass. Never thought I would ever see you so upset over a presidential candidate. Hell, I don't know that I've ever really seen you upset over anything!

I think it's likely that you honestly provide little to no value in any conversation by expecting everyone to fall in line with your request to walk down the middle of the road and talk about everything everyone is doing. You're welcome to claim "both sides do X so it doesn't matter" but it lends very little to the present conversation about what's going on.

Your comparison to Democrats reading the report from Mueller doesn't really make any sense or have any correlation to Republican House members "squatting" in the SCIF to prevent testimony around the Ukraine happenings. As has been mentioned to you multiple times now, there are Republicans on the committees and they have just as much allotment of time to ask questions of the witnesses as the Democrats do.

At this point I'll consider that you're a troll who just likes to rebut anything anyone says with "well your party does something barely related so they're just as bad" - and with that I will put you on ignore and wish you much success in debating other people in these threads.

PS - for the record I'm an unaffiliated voter

Not sure that ignore would work on him as he is a moderator of this website.

statefan91 said:

---

I think it's likely that you honestly provide little to no value in any conversation by expecting everyone to fall in line with your request to walk down the middle of the road and talk about everything everyone is doing. You're welcome to claim "both sides do X so it doesn't matter" but it lends very little to the present conversation about what's going on.

Your comparison to Democrats reading the report from Mueller doesn't really make any sense or have any correlation to Republican House members "squatting" in the SCIF to prevent testimony around the Ukraine happenings. As has been mentioned to you multiple times now, there are Republicans on the committees and they have just as much allotment of time to ask questions of the witnesses as the Democrats do.

At this point I'll consider that you're a troll who just likes to rebut anything anyone says with "well your party does something barely related so they're just as bad" - and with that I will put you on ignore and wish you much success in debating other people in these threads.

PS - for the record I'm an unaffiliated voter

---

Much success to you to kind sir. Wish you all the best and a happy political season next year!

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wish you all the best and a happy political season next year!

---

This is off-topic but has me thinking: will 2020 be the worst campaign year of our lifetime?

PackBacker07 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wish you all the best and a happy political season next year!

---

This is off-topic but has me thinking: will 2020 be the worst campaign year of our lifetime?

---

Honestly, I think it will be. So much hatred, angry, etc boiling over for sure. Never seen such partisan crap before. I think it is magnified by the media and social media in general but the divide between each side is crazy right now.

PackBacker07 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wish you all the best and a happy political season next year!

---

This is off-topic but has me thinking: will 2020 be the worst campaign year of our lifetime?

---

It's going to be nasty. And if it's Warren vs. Trump there will be a lot of people in the middle hating all of it

IseWolf22 said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Wish you all the best and a happy political season next year!

---

This is off-topic but has me thinking: will 2020 be the worst campaign year of our lifetime?

---

It's going to be nasty. And if it's Warren vs. Trump there will be a lot of people in the middle hating all of it

---

Agree with that 100%!! I will certainly be one of them.

I think it will be bad because of the amplification ability of social media. I don't have Facebook so avoid most of it but you obviously still get a lot just keeping up with news and twitter.

I will admit I use twitter, mainly for news and sports, but social media could be the downfall of civilization (only sort of joking). It's an echo chamber that amplifies divisions and as we saw in 2016, and continue to see today, it's displaying how the masses can easily be manipulated. It's amazing how the majority just think everything is true because it's on the internet. Truly horrifying.

PackBacker07 said:

---

I will admit I use twitter, mainly for news and sports, but social media could be the downfall of civilization (only sort of joking). It's an echo chamber that amplifies divisions and as we saw in 2016, and continue to see today, it's displaying how the masses can easily be manipulated. It's amazing how the majority just think everything is true because it's on the internet. Truly horrifying.

---

I don't think that's outlandish to say, honestly. In testimony to Congress yesterday, Zuckerberg said they would not be in the business of policing political ads for truth. So theoretically, you could put out ads targeting demographics to advertise the wrong voting day, misinformation, blatant lies, and Facebook will have no interest in validating the information before putting it out there.

Eh, I'm not really comfortable with Facebook being a gatekeeper on what is acceptable political speech. Big tech has a pretty poor record with clear and consistent standards.
I get your concern though. Blatently false misinformation should not be posted though it should be clearly flagged as false

Yeah - I guess if they don't want to be the gatekeepers of truth regarding political ads and the ability to disenfranchise people, they have to decide if they should show any political ads at all.

Glasswolf said:

---

So know it comes out that trump didn't watch badghadi get killed. He was killed at 3:30. Trump left his golf course at 3:33. Photo posted was posted at 5:07. Amazingly 3 of the White House folk have on. The exact same suits and ties as shown in a photo from the day before. He said that baghdadi was crying and screaming like a baby yet there was no sound on the video and only an overhead video. The man cannot stop lying. Best part of yesterday was the booing and lock him up chants from game 5. And he didn't even take his 13 year old son to the game

---

Well that does it!! He didn't take his son to the game in today's political climate. That is a sure fire impeachable offense!!!

This comment is as crazy as the ones who *****ed Obama killing UBL. Get over it

statefan91 said:

---

Yeah - I guess if they don't want to be the gatekeepers of truth regarding political ads and the ability to disenfranchise people, they have to decide if they should show any political ads at all.

---

I think I saw that political ads on facebook are less that 1% of total ad revenue. Seems like its just not worth the hassle.

Decorated Lt. Col. voiced concerns about Trump's phone calls starting in early July. He's already being attacked by Fox News and other conservative media because he emigrated from Ukraine? They really have no shame.

These are the folks testifying that Trump was trying to extort Ukraine to investigate his rival in exchange for foreign aid.

statefan91 said:

---

These are the folks testifying that Trump was trying to extort Ukraine to investigate his rival in exchange for foreign aid.

---

Just stop man. People here aren't going to ever think Dump has done enough to be impeached. Someone will bait you to try and explain what was so bad.

This is my last comment on this thread.

If you are a registered voter and you don't vote, shut the **** up. There will be 3 viable candidates come next November 2020.

If you don't vote you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

statefan91 said:

---

Decorated Lt. Col. voiced concerns about Trump's phone calls starting in early July. He's already being attacked by Fox News and other conservative media because he emigrated from Ukraine? They really have no shame.

---

LOL at complaining about FOX attacking a witness & suggesting they have no shame. Wonder what you have to say about the way CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, & NY Times approach reporting the news?

Sorry I may have missed where those channels were denigrating a US Service Member for doing his duty to protect the Constitution. Please link to what you're referencing and I'll be sure to voice similar grievances