What If Obama Said It?

StoneByStone said:
Why not? I think the Republicans should vote Trump out, then use that as a reason to go after Democrats who did the same thing as Trump. They could say look, this isn't a partisan issue, we impeached and removed Trump, now we need to do the same to corrupt Democrats, let's not have double-standards.



No, I'm taking the transcript over his word. It's painfully obvious he's lying.
Click to expand...

You want rid of Trump no matter what the cost, in other words lol.

But by absolutely no means would you sit still while they got rid of democrats *for actually doing* what you are *alleging* Trump has done.

I don’t think so.

Regarding the transcript: your assertions about it don’t make it so. You can’t speak your own reality into existence. If the transcript says what you claim, democrats wouldn’t need the whistleblower, all they would need is the transcript. And the problem with the transcript is there’s no quid pro quo.

That’s why democrats are hot to supplement it with gossip.
 
StoneByStone said:
Gosh, why can't Trump just withhold government aide until a foreign government digs up dirt on his political opponents without the law getting involved? Sheesh!!

It's funny, the Right has their own brand of "identity politics" where they're the real Americans who love this country and anyone else is part of the "Blame America" crowd that hates this country and the principles of democracy that it was built on. Trump proves this whole narrative is bullshit. Righties don't care about America, they only care about OWNING DA LIBS! If that means voting for a selfish retard who colludes with foreign governments to undermine democracy, then so be it.
Click to expand...
Ukraine collusion! :rolleyes:
 
Darth Omar said:
You want rid of Trump no matter what the cost, in other words lol.

But by absolutely no means would you sit still while they got rid of democrats *for actually doing* what you are *alleging* Trump has done.
Click to expand...

I'm not an NPC like you. I have no loyalty to either party.


Regarding the transcript: your assertions about it don’t make it so. You can’t speak your own reality into existence. If the transcript says what you claim, democrats wouldn’t need the whistleblower, all they would need is the transcript.
Click to expand...

They don't need the whistleblower. The transcript is damning enough, which is why Trump tried to hide the phone call. Funny how Trump tried to hide such a "perfect" call. You'd think he'd be proud of it.

And the problem with the transcript is there’s no quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
StoneByStone said:
I'm not an NPC like you. I have no loyalty to either party.

They don't need the whistleblower. The transcript is damning enough, which is why Trump tried to hide the phone call. Funny how Trump tried to hide such a "perfect" call. You'd think he'd be proud of it.



:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Click to expand...

So, the new standard is all phone calls between world leaders need to be transcribed and disseminated for global consumption.

Will that apply to future presidents or is it just a ‘Trump thing’?
 
Darth Omar said:
So, the new standard is all phone calls between world leaders need to be transcribed and disseminated for global consumption.
Click to expand...

No, the standard (which we already have) is that if a president breaks the law during a phone call, it gets disseminated so the public knows.

Will that apply to future presidents or is it just a ‘Trump thing’?
Click to expand...

It's applied to past presidents and it will apply to future presidents. Though there's never been a president dumb enough to try this over the phone and I doubt we'll ever have a president as dumb as Trump ever again.
 
StoneByStone said:
I doubt it, considering that collaborating with Russia wasn't enough. I won't even be surprised if he doesn't get impeached for attempting to collaborate with Ukraine. Knowing Trump, he'll just keep going. He'll probably check on Belarus next.
Click to expand...

Since neither of what you claim happened actually did, move on to the next made up claim, BOY.
 
StoneByStone said:
No, the standard (which we already have) is that if a president breaks the law during a phone call, it gets disseminated so the public knows.

It's applied to past presidents and it will apply to future presidents. Though there's never been a president dumb enough to try this over the phone and I doubt we'll ever have a president as dumb as Trump ever again.
Click to expand...

Which federal statute did he violate?
 
StoneByStone said:
He used the office of the presidency for private gain. And of course, this is only one of the times he did that.
Click to expand...

How so?

Trump was exercising his executive authority in *requesting* an investigation of a US citizen who he had reason to suspect was involved in criminal activity.

Which part of the constitution restricts said authority?
 
Darth Omar said:
How so?

Trump was exercising his executive authority in *requesting* an investigation of a US citizen who he had reason to suspect was involved in criminal activity.

Which part of the constitution restricts said authority?
Click to expand...

He was requesting it as a favor because Biden is a political opponent and he withheld federal aide until Zelensky agreed.
 
Darth Omar said:
How so?

Trump was exercising his executive authority in *requesting* an investigation of a US citizen who he had reason to suspect was involved in criminal activity.

Which part of the constitution restricts said authority?
Click to expand...

This matter already has been investigated, and nothing happened.
 
StoneByStone said:
He was requesting it as a favor because Biden is a political opponent and he withheld federal aide until Zelensky agreed.
Click to expand...

You didn’t answer the question lol.

Don’t go to the Senate with your speculations or it won’t end well. Btw, the Ukrainian leader’s claim that Trump didn’t pressure him to act—that will be admissible as evidence in a Senate trial because the leader was *an actual witness* to the conversation.
 
Darth Omar said:
How so?

Trump was exercising his executive authority in *requesting* an investigation of a US citizen who he had reason to suspect was involved in criminal activity.

Which part of the constitution restricts said authority?
Click to expand...

How interesting that of all the U.S. citizens who do business overseas, Trump chose that particular one to look into, eh? In addition, he also asked Zelensky to find out about an alleged server with alleged DNC info about Russian hacking in 2016 (the reference he made to "Crowdstrike"). In other words, not only does he want the Bidens investigated and dirt hopefully served up on them, he wants Ukraine to somehow prove that it wasn't Russians who hacked the DNC in 2016. He believes the conspiracy theory that some wealthy Ukrainian guy owns Crowdstrike and has possession of a server. Now why on Earth would he care about that? After all, according to Twittler, Mueller exonerated him from charges of colluding with the Russians to get elected.

It's pretty funny to watch you twist and flip and flop and spin. You have a great career ahead at Cirque du Soleil. lol

About Crowdstrike and the conspiracy nonsense:

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/27/7651...dstrike-has-to-do-with-the-trump-ukraine-matt
 
StoneByStone said:
I doubt it, considering that collaborating with Russia wasn't enough
Click to expand...

no evidence was found that anyone from the Trump campaign collaborated with Russia.........Mueller says stop being stupid........
mueller-reply-testify-ap-ps2-190724_hpMain_16x9_992.jpg
 
Darth Omar said:
You didn’t answer the question lol.
Click to expand...

Yes I did. I gave an example of Trump using the office to enrich himself in the form of getting dirt on a political opponent while he's running for reelection.

Btw, the Ukrainian leader’s claim that Trump didn’t pressure him to act—that will be admissible as evidence in a Senate trial because the leader was *an actual witness* to the conversation.
Click to expand...

Sure, but we both know that's a lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top