POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

So getting back to the point. The appearance of an investigation into a political candidate is just as important to hurting the candidate as an actual investigation.

Perfectly explains the Democratic strategy since Trumps election.

 

1. What? Are you high?

2. Even if he did threaten to withhold the aide until they agreed to cooperate with the investigation, such is routine, entirely within the POTUS’ right to do, that which has been done by every POTUS - and will continue to be, going forward - and was no more illegal than it was wrong, immoral, unethical.

Do you doubt any portion of this, whatsoever? Which parts, specifically.

I’ll be queuing up links on Obama’s using the IRS to go after conservative groups, and the thousands of Americans represented by each, while awaiting your answer.

Or I’ll be reading up on the FISA abuses, and wonder when that’s all going to circle back around to what Obama knew about the unmasking of the persons spawned from that illegitimate spying on Trump and his campaign. While he was running for President. Of America.

3. If the Biden’s would have wound up in the middle of an investigation which there is unanimous agreement as to its legitimacy and correctness, perhaps the problem is that the Biden’s were involved with corrupt Ukrainians, and not that Trump was helping AG Barr to investigate said corruption. You impeached Trump for setting up a drunk driving checkpoint on the road that Biden likes to travel when driving drunk.

2. “The appearance of an investigation was just as good as an actual investigation.” I wholeheartedly agree that you believe this.

Follow up: The Russian Collusion Hoax has dared you to step outside, sir.

 

So there is no confusion: I am merely high on the holiday spirit.

 

I’d consider it to be an early Christmas present if you’d expound on this, because I’m sensing it holds the potential for a spectacular grade of stupidity.

 

Out of the mouths of babes, right?

Bookmark that post. Maybe screenshot it.

 

Point me to one (1) person’s testimony that said this, and which you believe to be credible - meaning, which doesn’t outright refute it, isn’t hearsay, conjecture, assumption or some other easily identifiable fallacy.

One. Name’em.

 

I see the right wingers scraping the bottom of the barrel for ways to explain away the impeachment.

 

Guiliani, though he won't testify.

 

He has yet to be impeached, at least until Cokehead Nancy sends over the Articles.

 

Until the Left can explain how they haven't persuaded the American people nor 1 GOP member to vote with them, this is nothing more than a Bigfoot sighting. They saw it, but no one believes them.

 

Not Really.

1) Investigations hurt Political opponents. (admitted to)

2) Obstruction of justice is when you don't turn something over in Democrats time frame; even though you have the right to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. (Fact)

Simply suggesting that Democrats may have less than pure motives.

 

You have an odd definition of "no one." and what partisanship is.

 

You haven't persuaded anyone who didn't already agree with you and likely, according to polls, you lost some. The only bi-partisan support was against Impeachment.

Maybe, just maybe, you are wrong. Like you were for years claiming the President was a Russian asset.

 

it's a sad state of affairs when people can casually dismiss tens of millions of their fellow citizens as "no one" because they can't agree with them.

 

Yeah, how dare me. Now answer why the Left hasn't converted anyone and the only bi-partisan vote was against Impeachment.

 

How did you not read this, even as you were typing it?

To be clear - please, correct me where I’m wrong:

1. You made this statement:
“who did they withhold appropriated defense aid from to get the investigation? because that is the issue. you get that, right?”

You’re saying that Trump withheld defense aid from the Ukrainians, in order to get their cooperation on AG Barr’s investigation.

And that this is, in your own words, “the issue”.

2. I then responded by challenging your assertion (because I knew it was baseless, just as you must, too).
“Point me to one (1) person’s testimony that said this, and which you believe to be credible - meaning, which doesn’t outright refute it, isn’t hearsay, conjecture, assumption or some other easily identifiable fallacy.

One. Name’em.”

3. You literally couldn’t support or validate your claim with a single person’s sworn testimony - not one. Meaning, you’re trying to pass off your preferred fantasy as fact, and which it isn’t at all. Instead, the facts - the complete absence of any testimony to support your claim - explicitly refute it, instead, as several witnesses testified as having no direct knowledge of exactly what you claim, even when directly and repeatedly asked.

Let me say it another way: There is not one scintilla of testimony to support your claim, and instead, it all directly refutes it.

4. Instead, you listed Rudy Giuliani as the person who can corroborate your claim....but then - in the same sentence - admit that he hasn’t testified.

So, precisely no testimony - none, zero, zilch, nada - supports your claim that Trump withheld aid from Ukraine in order to secure their commitment to cooperate with AG Barr’s investigation.

Meaning, “the issue” is a complete non-issue.

And despite this, you still persist in believing this fantasy, and support Trump’s being impeached and removed from office for it, is that correct?

 

I don't agree with your first supposition, and the second is political in nature no matter how you slice it even if we disagree on how, which renders it to be circular logic that won't get you or me anywhere.

 

well, there are transcripts. and you asked regarding a qualified of no hearsay, when the investigation could not follow up on leads because subpoenas were not responded to, which you say is the privilege of the executive...

In the end, you are asking for a level of evidence you believe congress is not allowed to get and barred from getting if the executive doesn't wish for them to get it, and holding this up as saying the matter should be discarded and forgotten. you believe the presidency is above independent oversight. cool, got it. Crown him.

 

It matters because it is two movies on one screen. Your side has yet to convince anyone who sees the other movie that the one you are watching is the correct one.

In other words, it is likely you are wrong.

 

I disagree. I know people who have shifted. And regardless, changing someone else's mind has no bearing on whether something is true or not. that's a bizarre claim to make. How much time do you have to try and change my mind, before it begins to make you believe you are wrong? I am guessing a long ass time!