Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what you’re telling me then is that after 2 years of hearing that it is unlawful for a foreign country to interfere in our elections you still are not aware of that?
This is the specific law if you want to read the statute but I doubt you do considering how low information you have just shown yourself to be.
That law applies to campaign contributions. This isn't a campaign contribution. Be serious.
Try again.
Again, the whole legal definition of anything of value was fully discussed in the Russia investigation. I guess that never penetrated the echo chamber.
OF course it is. Anything of value. Most certainly dirt on Biden would be VERY valuable to Crooked Don.
People still cant except Trump has done something wrong. Just more excuses. Read page 2 of the report. If you cant comprehend it. Ask some one to explain it to you.
Saying a president that achieves a broad US foreign policy goal that could accrue to his domestic political benefit, is no different from a president leveraging a foreign country to take an action for the SOLE benefit of his personal political gain is the height of TDS.
The height of TDS is interpreting a request that would serve the country's interests as being for personal political gain, when tens of millions of Americans will you tell you that he can't do anything for "personal political gain" since his "personal" political gain serves the national interest more than it serves his "personal" interests. The way you frame this is absurd. In principle, it's the same as achieving a "broad foreign policy goal".
EXACTLY!!! Has anyone actually read the complaint and the transcripts? If you have, you would know that the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves!
I wish they would get to the ACTUAL issues that need work in this country, but instead all they plan on doing is trying to get the President out of office.
I am sick. And tired.
This is gaslighting in the extreme. Yes I hope everyone does read the full transcripts, so they can come to the opposite conclusion you have.
Again, the whole legal definition of anything of value was fully discussed in the Russia investigation. I guess that never penetrated the echo chamber.
Yes, I know it was discussed, and this doesn't qualify. Not even close. Intangible things don't qualify.
I guess you're not perceptive enough to understand why that MUST be the case, but I am. Do you understand that your position means that every time the New York Times printed an article the politicians it favored would be committing a crime? Has it occurred to you that that has value? Of course not, but it's evident to people like me and the attorney general who are intelligent lawyers not blinded by hatred of the President.
This is gaslighting in the extreme. Yes I hope everyone does read the full transcripts, so they can come to the opposite conclusion you have.
Not really, page 3, 4th paragraph, last sentence clearly states the whistleblower has no clue whether the information they obtained were present when the phone call took place....
Also, notice how the transcript never stated anything about "pressuring" the ukraine president .....but how many times does the letter state it? two HUGE glaring discrepancies....
Now, take the fact that those who were THERE....never said "pressuring", but those that who were not there (possibly) said pressuring numerous times........think about that....really....
Not really, page 3, 4th paragraph, last sentence clearly states the whistleblower has no clue whether the information they obtained were present when the phone call took place....
Also, notice how the transcript never stated anything about "pressuring" the ukraine president .....but how many times does the letter state it? two HUGE glaring discrepancies....
Now, take the fact that those who were THERE....never said "pressuring", but those that who were not there (possibly) said pressuring numerous times........think about that....really....
They’ve also already confirmed someone he or she claimed was on the call wasn’t even on it so they’ve got this person on one lie already
Not really, page 3, 4th paragraph, last sentence clearly states the whistleblower has no clue whether the information they obtained were present when the phone call took place....
Also, notice how the transcript never stated anything about "pressuring" the ukraine president .....but how many times does the letter state it? two HUGE glaring discrepancies....
Now, take the fact that those who were THERE....never said "pressuring", but those that who were not there (possibly) said pressuring numerous times........think about that....really....
Not that there's anything wrong with pressuring, or anything else the "whistleblower" alleges.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
