Trump didn't openly extort Zelensky. He simply made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Laughably false. Be serious.

Anyway, I just gave you two defenses to your specious claim. They are in Muller's report. You know how many Democrats were on his team?

 

Mueller declined to prosecute Trump over the Trump Tower meeting for three reasons (wrongly in my view)

A. He said that there had to knowledge that what they were doing was illegal. Obviously in this case (because of the Mueller Report and the Trump Tower meeting) Trump could no longer be ignorant of that. (Additionally Manafort had plenty of political consulting experience and would have known)

B. Mueller claimed that he couldn't put an exact value on the oppo research as to whether it was a misdemeanor ($2K limit) or a felony ($20K value). Weak tea. There have been plenty of oppo research incidences to compare it to.

C. Mueller was operating under the DOJ "rule" that a President can't be indicted in any event

 

"foreign government manufacturing dirt on his political opponent."

Can you cite that in the transcript ?

 

Exact value? LOL. Okay, how about an inexact value, a rough estimate, or a wild guess? And were his concerns about violating Trump's constitutional rights under the First Amendment misplaced? There were some serious legal scholars in his team, remember. None of them picked by Trump.

And "To compare it to"? How many have been prosecuted, as against any politician anywhere? And why would that be?

 

They are experts at reading between the lines, see? Me, I only see white paper between the lines.

 

Perhaps we could compare it to this interesting research.

Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...6fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html

 

No he can't. That's abuse of power.

 

Did we find out for a FACT?

 

How is it an abuse of power for a leader to ask another leader to investigate corruption in their country?

 

Because Trump.

 

It's strange but they're allowed to make assumptions. The problem I see is assuming that Republican Senators will make those same assumptions

 

Well, they may actually wear the Senate's declination as a badge of honor: "We TOLD you that Republicans don't care about abuse of power!"

 

Maybe so. But that's in the eye of the beholder, unlike, say theft, murder, or embezzlement.

The House will have to put something more detailed in the articles of impeachment, and gear them to a specific provision of law. I've ready pointed out the deficiencies in alleging that he solicited a thing of value under our election code.

Has anyone in a position of authority ever even alleged that derogatory, truthful information (unlike the golden shower claim, paid for ... who was it, again?) is a thing of value under the election code?

 

Oh they most definitely will say that but that should be expected since distorting facts seems to be their pattern lately

 

Uh oh ....

https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1177714227756314625?s=20

I almost feel badly for Nancy Pelosi. She knew this was going to happen but could do nothing to stop it.

 

Yep! Leftist 'logic!'

 

I can't speak for "we" because I have no way of knowing what you have or have not found out.

 

I can't work out why it translates into donations.

 

Well I was using your language. Who did you mean by "we?"

 

I don't know if you are being facetious, but I suspect it's as much antipathy for the atrocious, dishonest, and pious Adam Schiff as it is sympathy for Trump.

What surprised me was the number of small donations. Are they from working class people, or are there more conservative, politicaly engaged university students out there than meets the eye?

 

It's only in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent. I mean... extorting a foreign leader to obtain dirt on a political opponent or they don't get the weapons and aid that Congress already appropriated so they could fend off an imminent Russian invasion is pretty blatant. Not what any moderately intelligent human being would consider a "gray area"

What is in the Mueller Report alone should be enough for any objective observer. I mean, if it's good enough to send him to jail, it should be good enough to remove him from Office. But I understand that Republicans in Congress are not objective observers. I believe that everybody who is moderately informed has made up their mind at this point as to whether or not Trump should be removed. There is more than enough evidence for anybody who cares to look at it, that he has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors (as well as actual crimes). There will be more, of course. But those who deny the evidence on hand, will just as easily deny any future evidence.

This whole process is not meant to convince those who have been following it. It's to convince those who haven't.

Of course! Mueller! The law makes no distinction between whether information is truthful or not. But, of course it, has more value if it's truthful. In fact, I would doubt that it would have any value if it weren't. But I guess there might be some instances.

BTW, I don't know why the golden shower claim wouldn't be correct. After all, everything else in the Dossier turned out to be correct. I can't think of a reason why somebody would make up one thing, which is not even the most damning, when they have been accurate about everything else. At least as to everything we have had the opportunity to verify.

 

I meant those of us who found out.

 

Biden didn't even "make an offer he couldn't refuse." He flat out told him to fire the guy that would likely be investing his son or a $1 Billion or so in aid from the USA would be withheld. Why is Trump's call considered worthy of impeachment talk, while Biden's at a minimum, inappropriate involvement in this matter that he bragged about in public, not even news worthy?

 

Okay and did you find out for a FACT? Or did you just find out about something in the whistleblower report? Don't tell me that you're treating the report as fact! Surely not!

 

Hmmm...conservatives are for free trade, balanced budgets, and limited government. Trump is an "opportunist," not a conservative.