Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-03-2019, 07:51 PM
 
8,789 posts, read 2,464,031 times
Reputation: 4587

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
No. If the question is Trump's state of mind (e.g., was he acting in personal benefit or in furtherance of US policy) then only what he knew at the time is relevant. If the police draw up a totally fake warrant fabricating that that they saw a 6' tall blonde carrying drugs into house, that by happenstance they find a 6' tall blonde inside would not magically validate the warrant. The same concept applies here. Whether Trump acted in his personal interests does not depend on whether it ultimately turns out that Hunter Biden was corrupt.
Everyone knew about Burisma back then and had for years. The corruption in question was years before Trump was even in office.

You need to prove that there was no legitimate reason for anyone to want Ukrainian corruption investigated, that Trump acted solely for personal gain. You have to prove that there was nothing suspicious to want to look into. That it was all complete fabrication that didn't even appear suspicious. If you can't do that, you have no case. It's the same reason why Joe Biden is in the clear with the whole thing, he's got a plausible excuse for acting on behalf of his son's company.

 
Old 12-03-2019, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,860 posts, read 25,794,328 times
Reputation: 15433
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat View Post
The situation with Burisma's corruption is years old, clearly the president had an interest in it. In order to prove any wrongdoing happened, you have to prove that wasn't the case.....that his interest was entirely political and that he had no interest in that country investigating corruption.

The case you have to make is that there was nothing suspicious whatsoever to look into and that no one would think otherwise.

That case dies if you show that things really did look suspicious. It would be interesting to get Hunter Biden under oath and see where things go from there. Any legitimate House investigation would have included that already, but we both know it was just a political hatchet job from the start. Basically a desperation contingency plan after the Comey-Strzok "insurance policy" failed.
They have to prove that there was no wrongful actions by Joe Biden, how do they go about proving that point. If all the investigations by Barr turned up nothing what do you expect. This is nothing but a giant deflection from Trump’s misdeeds. What would convince you of Trump’s actions, a video, do you need to hear him say in one sentence that he needs to have an investigation of the Biden’s or Ukraine isn’t getting aid.
 
Old 12-03-2019, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Lyon, France, Whidbey Island WA
20,830 posts, read 16,974,969 times
Reputation: 11532
Poor Democrats. All dressed up and no where to go.
 
Old 12-03-2019, 07:57 PM
 
9,254 posts, read 3,544,636 times
Reputation: 4852
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat View Post
Everyone knew about Burisma back then and had for years. The corruption in question was years before Trump was even in office.

You need to prove that there was no legitimate reason for anyone to want Ukrainian corruption investigated, that Trump acted solely for personal gain. You have to prove that there was nothing suspicious to want to look into. That it was all complete fabrication that didn't even appear suspicious. If you can't do that, you have no case. It's the same reason why Joe Biden is in the clear with the whole thing, he's got a plausible excuse for acting on behalf of his son's company.
Trump did not ask to investigate "Ukrainian corruption." Look at the call readout. He asked for an investigation into "the Bidens." Frankly, had he focused himself, Giuliani, and Sondland on battling "Ukrainian corruption" instead of "the Bidens" specifically, he wouldn't be in this mess.

Given that fact, your point that "[e]veryone knew about Burisma back then and had for years" actually further cuts against any claim that Trump was not acting in his personal political interests given that he waited until Biden announced his candidacy to do anything about it.
 
Old 12-03-2019, 07:58 PM
 
Location: Salisbury,NC
16,751 posts, read 8,111,881 times
Reputation: 8509
Quote:
Originally Posted by boss View Post
the phone logs are real interesting.

I still believe there will be at least 3 articles of impeachment.
1 abuse of office
2 solicitation of bribery.
3 obstruction of congress.

All laid out in the report.
The question will be do they also use chapter ii of the mueller report. If that is the case then add obstruction of justice.

Could be more as the legal cases for keeping people from testifying are going to be taken up by scotus (if scotus takes them). They have 7 days to appeal and get scotus to take them up.
:d:d
 
Old 12-03-2019, 07:59 PM
 
8,789 posts, read 2,464,031 times
Reputation: 4587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
They have to prove that there was no wrongful actions by Joe Biden, how do they go about proving that point. If all the investigations by Barr turned up nothing what do you expect. This is nothing but a giant deflection from Trump’s misdeeds. What would convince you of Trump’s actions, a video, do you need to hear him say in one sentence that he needs to have an investigation of the Biden’s or Ukraine isn’t getting aid.
They have to prove that there was nothing at all suspicious when it comes to Burisma and that the sole reason for Trump's actions was personal gain. I can't tell you how to prove that because I don't think it can be. I'm not the one pushing the conspiracy theories here.

Since none of Trump's actions were inherently illegal, you have no "misdeeds" unless you can definitively prove intent. Even him saying that he requires an investigation of the Bidens or Ukraine isn't getting aid wouldn't be sufficient because of the plausible excuse that investigating Ukrainian corruption is in the best interest of the state....basically you would need a statement from Trump saying that he only wanted those things for his own political gain or to end Biden's bid for president.

It's not my fault that you guys are going after something you can't hope to prove. I certainly didn't tell you to make fools of yourselves.
 
Old 12-03-2019, 08:03 PM
 
9,254 posts, read 3,544,636 times
Reputation: 4852
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat View Post
They have to prove that there was nothing at all suspicious when it comes to Burisma and that the sole reason for Trump's actions was personal gain. I can't tell you how to prove that because I don't think it can be. I'm not the one pushing the conspiracy theories here.

Since none of Trump's actions were inherently illegal, you have no "misdeeds" unless you can definitively prove intent. Even him saying that he requires an investigation of the Bidens or Ukraine isn't getting aid wouldn't be sufficient because of the plausible excuse that investigating Ukrainian corruption is in the best interest of the state....basically you would need a statement from Trump saying that he only wanted those things for his own political gain or to end Biden's bid for president.

It's not my fault that you guys are going after something you can't hope to prove. I certainly didn't tell you to make fools of yourselves.
You're just framing the argument as how you wish it were, not how it really is. As in any proceeding, one can rely on circumstantial evidence to prove intent because, truth be told, you will rarely if ever see someone verbalize intent (especially when wrongful). And there is a boatload of circumstantial evidence here that Trump was acting for personal gain rather than in furtherance of US policy when he suspended the aid.
 
Old 12-03-2019, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,860 posts, read 25,794,328 times
Reputation: 15433
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat View Post
They have to prove that there was nothing at all suspicious when it comes to Burisma and that the sole reason for Trump's actions was personal gain. I can't tell you how to prove that because I don't think it can be. I'm not the one pushing the conspiracy theories here.

Since none of Trump's actions were inherently illegal, you have no "misdeeds" unless you can definitively prove intent. Even him saying that he requires an investigation of the Bidens or Ukraine isn't getting aid wouldn't be sufficient because of the plausible excuse that investigating Ukrainian corruption is in the best interest of the state....basically you would need a statement from Trump saying that he only wanted those things for his own political gain or to end Biden's bid for president.

It's not my fault that you guys are going after something you can't hope to prove. I certainly didn't tell you to make fools of yourselves.
He wasn't investigating Ukraine corruption, he had no interest in Burisma until Biden announced his run. Burisma has been corrupt for years. His only interest was the Bidens, not corruption.
 
Old 12-03-2019, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Salisbury,NC
16,751 posts, read 8,111,881 times
Reputation: 8509
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
Trump did not ask to investigate "Ukrainian corruption." Look at the call readout. He asked for an investigation into "the Bidens."

Given that fact, your point that "[e]veryone knew about Burisma back then and had for years" actually further cuts against any claim that Trump was not acting in his personal political interests given that he waited until Biden announced his candidacy to do anything about it.
Trump got caught and then has tried to cover up his violation of Art. II Sec.4 of the Constitution. Trump abused the office and has Obstructed Congress.

Trump supporters can only claim that if they put their hands over their eyes and go nananananan, that is a winning argument
 
Old 12-03-2019, 08:06 PM
 
8,789 posts, read 2,464,031 times
Reputation: 4587
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
Trump did not ask to investigate "Ukrainian corruption." Look at the call readout. He asked for an investigation into "the Bidens."

Given that fact, your point that "[e]veryone knew about Burisma back then and had for years" actually further cuts against any claim that Trump was not acting in his personal political interests given that he waited until Biden announced his candidacy to do anything about it.

Again, prove any of what you are saying definitively. You can make allegations, but when you can't actually prove any of it, what value is it?

Prove that his only interest was personal gain. The presumption is that he's innocent unless you can do so.

If you can't do so, then you are just embarrassing yourself.....you might as well be a "birther" at that point.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top