List of Trump's crimes?

[MaxVel]

CP, this is nothing but a dodge. Stop trying to deflect from the topic and deal with its content. I'm not making any specific point about whether you are right or wrong to do what you do. Nor am I comparing you to me in any moral sense.

I'm talking specifically about how you post relative to Trump propaganda and relative to those that oppose Trump's agenda and actions. You can either face that reality or not.

The problem is that for you there is no neutral position. Trump is 100% evil, everything he says and does is bad and wrong, and (thus) every negative report about him is true, and every neutral or positive report must be false. You will deny this is what you believe, but your actions show that this is the case.

Not everyone thinks like you do. Simply pointing out that a particular report or claim about Trump's misdeeds is dubious or lacks evidence is, to you, supporting him and being hand in hand with evil.

That's insane, and shows a preference for a narrative that emotionally resounds with you rather than a search for actual truth.

An accusation against Trump can be false or insufficiently supported and Trump still a bad President - but not for you.

I base my assessment of you on your interactions directly with me on TWeb, as well as how you respond to posters like CP. You're way past rationality and reason on this, and too invested in 'Trump being evil'.


CP can accept that Trump is wrong about some things, doubtful on others, and right on a few things.

You can't. For you, Trump is always wrong, about everything.

That shows who is being more objective, more rational, and analysing the evidence more objectively. It's not you.

[Tassman]

it turned into a gripe session where a disgruntled employee was given an opportunity to vent her spleen and tell everyone what a great job she did and what a meanie Trump was for firing her^[1]. This led to more than one pundit (from both sides of the aisle) asking why did she even testify -- especially after Schiff made a point of saying that he would not allow anyone to testify that didn't have direct, personal knowledge of the particulars of this case. Then again, nearly none of the witnesses called met that criteria.

Yovanovitch had good reason to “gripe” given that she had been the target of a conspiracy-driven smear campaign orchestrated by Rudy Giuliani, to clear the way for Trump’s well documented attempted abuse of power.

[lilpixieofterror]

Mock all you like pix. Trump has been, is, and will be a blight on the ideals of our nation. The road he has paved, if not destroyed, if not backtracked and blocked off, is the road to the elimination of the separation of powers, the elimination of the checks and balances so central to our survival as a nation, and ultimately the elimination of our freedom. And it is a very sad day indeed when intelligent, well educated people such as yourself are so obsessed by partisan concerns they are blind to what is happening.

You’re right, just yesterday my neighbor was taken away, by the thought police, for unauthorized thoughts against Trump. Such a shame that Trump got her too.

In reality land, things under Trump are the same as they were under Obama, difference is who is freaking out. Don’t worry, a Democrat will eventually win and things will be back to normal, where the democrats are shrugging at everything the democrat president does and republicans will be freaking out about everything and you’ll be happy again, until a Republican wins again.

[lilpixieofterror]

The problem is that for you there is no neutral position. Trump is 100% evil, everything he says and does is bad and wrong, and (thus) every negative report about him is true, and every neutral or positive report must be false. You will deny this is what you believe, but your actions show that this is the case.

Not everyone thinks like you do. Simply pointing out that a particular report or claim about Trump's misdeeds is dubious or lacks evidence is, to you, supporting him and being hand in hand with evil.

That's insane, and shows a preference for a narrative that emotionally resounds with you rather than a search for actual truth.

An accusation against Trump can be false or insufficiently supported and Trump still a bad President - but not for you.

I base my assessment of you on your interactions directly with me on TWeb, as well as how you respond to posters like CP. You're way past rationality and reason on this, and too invested in 'Trump being evil'.


CP can accept that Trump is wrong about some things, doubtful on others, and right on a few things.

You can't. For you, Trump is always wrong, about everything.

That shows who is being more objective, more rational, and analysing the evidence more objectively. It's not you.

AKA, when everything is a crisis, nothing is.

[Cow Poke]

CP, this is nothing but a dodge.

Sure, Jim.

[oxmixmudd]

Sure, Jim.

.. Followed by another...

Too bad you dont have the guts to actually address the point being made.

[Cow Poke]

.. Followed by another...

Too bad you dont have the guts to actually address the point being made.

Sure, Jim.

[Cow Poke]

I agree with Democratic Congressman Jefferson Van Drew's views...

While he considers the president's actions on Ukraine "unsavory," the congressman said he has yet to learn of anything that would persuade him Trump did something to warrant removal from office.

No president has ever been removed from office, Van Drew, 66, points out. And to have a "small, elite group" of lawmakers do so when an election is less than a year away seems to him to be not only unfathomable but un-American.

[seanD]

I agree with Democratic Congressman Jefferson Van Drew's views...

While he considers the president's actions on Ukraine "unsavory," the congressman said he has yet to learn of anything that would persuade him Trump did something to warrant removal from office.

No president has ever been removed from office, Van Drew, 66, points out. And to have a "small, elite group" of lawmakers do so when an election is less than a year away seems to him to be not only unfathomable but un-American.

Backpedal, backpedal, one by one...

[Watermelon]

I think it's pretty naive to assume that because Biden hasn't been investigated, it therefore concludes his innocence. In fact, that's really naive. I wouldn't expect it to be investigated by someone who has an affinity to the Democratic party since every faucet of government (and as we've found out recently, this even includes the intelligence community) is pretty much entrenched in partisan tribalism. But it is being investigated now by Graham, and hopefully if the impeachment goes to the senate, it will be further looked into. And according to Solomon's sources -- the "Russian asset political rightwing hack" -- Biden's request for Shokin's ousting would have presumably occurred sometime between Victoria Nuland's demand that he be removed on March 15 and Biden's call to Poroshenko on March 22.

Also, no one seems to know how the law pertains to a VP extorting another country with tax funds, even if it was for good intentions.

I never claimed Biden was innocent because he hadn't been investigated.

You don't seem to understand what the actual issue is but it seems common.

Elected officials, and essentially all government personnel, are given powers to carry out their respective duties to advance the interests of the public.

If their position gives them the power to withhold aid then you would be correct to say they are allowed to withhold aid, they are legitimately exercising a power they possess which is conditioned on their obligation to use it as described above.

An abuse of power occurs when someone uses a power that they were given to solely advance their own interests. The power is given to them out of necessity to govern, not to personally benefit politically or financially.

So the reason behind the exercise of the power is the issue that needs consideration.

While Biden's situation could be seen as advancing his own interests in helping his son, it doesn't somehow invalidate the fact that there was a legitimate reason in using it, which is well documented with bipartisan and international support at that time.

Trump used his power to set up his personal team in Ukraine. What public interest did they serve? The witnesses testified that they were an impediment to the foreign policy they were tasked to carry out. Their only interest, it seems, was to get the Ukrainians to publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens and Crowdstrike. They conditioned a white house visit on this announcement and aid was withheld under Trumps orders.

The allegation here is that Trump used his powers with the purpose of forcing Ukraine to do something that would only benefit him personally. The withholding of aid is just the biggest alleged abuse of power due to the magnitude of what it represented and this is the only thing that people seem to focus on but the entire narrative laid out by the democrats and the witnesses during the inquiry shows multiple situations where power seems to have been abused in a systematic effort to use the Ukrainians for his own purpose. That's why every witness was not only relevant but also a direct witness to certain events that contributed to creating a clearer picture for the period that the allegations occurred.

Trump can defend this by explaining how his actions were in the publics interest but all he seems to be doing is whining about how unfair everything is while blocking anyone he can from cooperating and insulting anyone that does. His tactic is to turn the public against this process when all he has to do is justify his actions like Biden did.

[seanD]

I never claimed Biden was innocent because he hadn't been investigated.

You don't seem to understand what the actual issue is but it seems common.

Elected officials, and essentially all government personnel, are given powers to carry out their respective duties to advance the interests of the public.

If their position gives them the power to withhold aid then you would be correct to say they are allowed to withhold aid, they are legitimately exercising a power they possess which is conditioned on their obligation to use it as described above.

An abuse of power occurs when someone uses a power that they were given to solely advance their own interests. The power is given to them out of necessity to govern, not to personally benefit politically or financially.

So the reason behind the exercise of the power is the issue that needs consideration.

While Biden's situation could be seen as advancing his own interests in helping his son, it doesn't somehow invalidate the fact that there was a legitimate reason in using it, which is well documented with bipartisan and international support at that time.

Trump used his power to set up his personal team in Ukraine. What public interest did they serve? The witnesses testified that they were an impediment to the foreign policy they were tasked to carry out. Their only interest, it seems, was to get the Ukrainians to publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens and Crowdstrike. They conditioned a white house visit on this announcement and aid was withheld under Trumps orders.

The allegation here is that Trump used his powers with the purpose of forcing Ukraine to do something that would only benefit him personally. The withholding of aid is just the biggest alleged abuse of power due to the magnitude of what it represented and this is the only thing that people seem to focus on but the entire narrative laid out by the democrats and the witnesses during the inquiry shows multiple situations where power seems to have been abused in a systematic effort to use the Ukrainians for his own purpose. That's why every witness was not only relevant but also a direct witness to certain events that contributed to creating a clearer picture for the period that the allegations occurred.

Trump can defend this by explaining how his actions were in the publics interest but all he seems to be doing is whining about how unfair everything is while blocking anyone he can from cooperating and insulting anyone that does. His tactic is to turn the public against this process when all he has to do is justify his actions like Biden did.

Well, I'm certainly not going to debate you on the quid pro quo issue in regards to Trump. I don't think that's been proven, which is why we not only have the never-ending back and fourth about it on this forum, but now you have Dems starting to rethink the impeachment agenda. However, we KNOW for sure Biden did it because he's on video admitting it. Personally, I believe Trump was justified whether he directly engaged in it or not. But that's my question. Can the president extort a country with tax funds to achieve an agenda, whether well-intentioned or not? I say no, because without measures against this, it would allow for potential abuse of power and corruption by the president. But I honestly don't know the law on this issue, and no one seems to be talking about it.

[demi-conservative]

. Can the president extort a country with tax funds to achieve an agenda, whether well-intentioned or not? I say no, because without measures against this, it would allow for potential abuse of power and corruption by the president. But I honestly don't know the law on this issue, and no one seems to be talking about it.

Come on man, foreign aid is meant to achieve an agenda. It's the main point...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...n-isnt-stopped
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...jerusalem-vote
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mfonobo...o-cut-off-aid/
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Bu...-to-cut-PA-aid
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...id_cutoff.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/19/w...h-koreans.html

...and examples abound.

[seanD]

Come on man, foreign aid is meant to achieve an agenda. It's the main point...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...n-isnt-stopped
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...jerusalem-vote
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mfonobo...o-cut-off-aid/
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Bu...-to-cut-PA-aid
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...id_cutoff.html

...and examples abound.

I know it's been done. My question is, is it officially legal?

[demi-conservative]

I know it's been done. My question is, is it officially legal?

I can't find any argument by Ron Paul against foreign aid on that basis, so it's not officially illegal.

[rogue06]

I agree with Democratic Congressman Jefferson Van Drew's views...

While he considers the president's actions on Ukraine "unsavory," the congressman said he has yet to learn of anything that would persuade him Trump did something to warrant removal from office.

No president has ever been removed from office, Van Drew, 66, points out. And to have a "small, elite group" of lawmakers do so when an election is less than a year away seems to him to be not only unfathomable but un-American.

Just imagine the wall-to-wall coverage if a Republican Congressman called the actions of his party "un-American."