Romney taking on Trump

[Rocketboy1313]

I guess Mitt would have to use his "religious convictions" to justify his decision considering Trump broke no statutory crime. He just "feels" Trump did something wrong. Kinda goes against your "logical" argument tho.

Trump. Did. Crimes.
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/trump-crimes-law/

I don't know what to tell you.
I have read the "perfect" transcript.
I have kept abreast of the timeline of events related to the Ukraine.
He committed crimes.

Article 2. Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[Antiboyscout]

I guess Mitt would have to use his "religious convictions" to justify his decision considering Trump broke no statutory crime. He just "feels" Trump did something wrong. Kinda goes against your "logical" argument tho.

Trump. Did. Crimes.
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/trump-crimes-law/

I don't know what to tell you.
I have read the "perfect" transcript.
I have kept abreast of the timeline of events related to the Ukraine.
He committed crimes.

Article 2. Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Then why wasn't he charged with Bribery? The two charges laid against him were:
1) Abuse of Power
2) Obstruction of Congress
The first highly nebulous and the second dependent on the first, nether statutory

I do know where you got the idea tho
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-shift-rhetoric-from-quid-pro-quo-to-bribery-after-impeachment-focus-groups

[Antiboyscout]

I guess Mitt would have to use his "religious convictions" to justify his decision considering Trump broke no statutory crime. He just "feels" Trump did something wrong. Kinda goes against your "logical" argument tho.

Sure, if you ignore the evidence. Seems to be a lot of that going on.

See above

[Rocketboy1313]

Then why wasn't he charged with Bribery? The two charges laid against him were:
1) Abuse of Power
2) Obstruction of Congress
The first highly nebulous and the second dependent on the first, nether statutory

I do know where you got the idea tho
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-shift-rhetoric-from-quid-pro-quo-to-bribery-after-impeachment-focus-groups

Abuse of power encapsulates the bribery and chain of activity surrounding the withholding of funds to the Ukraine. The Obstruction of Congress incorporates other aspects.

Quid Pro Quo is a form of bribery. Using the terms interchangeably when dealing with a complex conspiracy which involves the abuse of power is logical.

You can get into a debate about semantics, but that is just a waste of time.

I don't know how on the nose you need content to be.
This case was open and shut.
And Republicans (with the exception of Romney) refused to act.
You should be upset about that.

Trump is not the United States.
Trump is not the Republican party.
He is just some asshole who is currently inexplicably popular.
If you remove him you can get another guy to appoint the judges you want to oppress women and minorities while furthering corporate interests. You can still bomb the Middle East. But you wouldn't be compromising the elections while doing so.

And that is the real point when it comes to all this. It is what Trump's Lawyer Dershowitz argued when he said the President is free to abuse his office to get elected if he thinks getting reelected is in the public interest. You know, the logic of Doctor Fucking Doom.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/29/dershowitz_not_impeachable_if_president_does_something_he_believes_will_help_him_get_elected_in_the_public_interest.html

[Antiboyscout]

Abuse of power encapsulates the bribery and chain of activity surrounding the withholding of funds to the Ukraine. The Obstruction of Congress incorporates other aspects.

Quid Pro Quo is a form of bribery. Using the terms interchangeably when dealing with a complex conspiracy which involves the abuse of power is logical.

You can get into a debate about semantics, but that is just a waste of time.

I don't know how on the nose you need content to be.
This case was open and shut.
And Republicans (with the exception of Romney) refused to act.
You should be upset about that.

Trump is not the United States.
Trump is not the Republican party.
He is just some asshole who is currently inexplicably popular.
If you remove him you can get another guy to appoint the judges you want to oppress women and minorities while furthering corporate interests. You can still bomb the Middle East. But you wouldn't be compromising the elections while doing so.

And that is the real point when it comes to all this. It is what Trump's Lawyer Dershowitz argued when he said the President is free to abuse his office to get elected if he thinks getting reelected is in the public interest. You know, the logic of Doctor Fucking Doom.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/29/dershowitz_not_impeachable_if_president_does_something_he_believes_will_help_him_get_elected_in_the_public_interest.html

Unfortunately for you, withholding aid is entirely the preview of the president as chief diplomat whatever the reason.

inexplicably? I think the economy has something to do with that.

bomb the middle east? My god man you are so out of touch it isn't even funny. Some of Trump's biggest pushback is his withdrawing from the mid-east

https://www.businessinsider.com/alan-dershowitz-trumps-ukraine-2020-vote-2020-2
"The president did something that is completely lawful, the fact that part of his motivation may have been to help his election cannot be the quid pro quo," Dershowitz said. "That's what I said. I never said, I don't mean and I don't believe that a president can do anything if he thinks it's in [the] national interest."

[Darth Wedgius]

Quid pro quo is a form of bribery if done for personal gain. That Joe and Hunter Biden might be dirty in their involvement in Ukraine is a legit concern for the POTUS, so whether or not it was bribery goes to state of mind.

Joe Biden in Dec. 2015 threatened to withhold $1 billion unless Ukraine prosecutor Shokin was fired, as Shokin was investigating Hunter Biden. Shokin was widely believed to be corrupt. So did Biden want Shokin gone because he was corrupt or to protect Hunter Biden? Well, if I were a closed-minded idealogue I'd assume it was the later and that Joe Biden was motivated by his own corruption, making it easier to dismiss him as someone I didn't have to listen to.

What Romney did was probably motivated by conscience, and kudos to him for that. I can't say it was motivated by logic, but because I don't see it doesn't mean that it wasn't; he may just have expressed himself inadequately. The whole impeachment and the acquittal both seemed to be more theater than reason, anyway, and I don't think it speaks well to either party.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

So much for the tolerant left.

[Edvarius]

Quid pro quo is a form of bribery if done for personal gain. That Joe and Hunter Biden might be dirty in their involvement in Ukraine is a legit concern for the POTUS, so whether or not it was bribery goes to state of mind.

Joe Biden in Dec. 2015 threatened to withhold $1 billion unless Ukraine prosecutor Shokin was fired, as Shokin was investigating Hunter Biden. Shokin was widely believed to be corrupt. So did Biden want Shokin gone because he was corrupt or to protect Hunter Biden? Well, if I were a closed-minded idealogue I'd assume it was the later and that Joe Biden was motivated by his own corruption, making it easier to dismiss him as someone I didn't have to listen to.

Except that's not what happened. The prosecutor Biden was trying to get removed was one who was dragging his feet with investigation against the company Biden's son was working for. Getting rid of Shokin would make it more likely the company would be investigated, not less. That makes the action something that was against any personal interest Biden had in the matter. THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF CORRUPTION.

[Darth Wedgius]

Quid pro quo is a form of bribery if done for personal gain. That Joe and Hunter Biden might be dirty in their involvement in Ukraine is a legit concern for the POTUS, so whether or not it was bribery goes to state of mind.

Joe Biden in Dec. 2015 threatened to withhold $1 billion unless Ukraine prosecutor Shokin was fired, as Shokin was investigating Hunter Biden. Shokin was widely believed to be corrupt. So did Biden want Shokin gone because he was corrupt or to protect Hunter Biden? Well, if I were a closed-minded idealogue I'd assume it was the later and that Joe Biden was motivated by his own corruption, making it easier to dismiss him as someone I didn't have to listen to.

Except that's not what happened. The prosecutor Biden was trying to get removed was one who was dragging his feet with investigation against the company Biden's son was working for. Getting rid of Shokin would make it more likely the company would be investigated, not less. That makes the action something that was against any personal interest Biden had in the matter. THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF CORRUPTION.

For what it's worth, that is not what Shokin says.

[JoeThree]

Never Trumpers are the worst. Pure emotion, no logic, just pissy because a mean man who reminds them of the guy who bullies them in middle school is now President.