List of Trump's crimes?

[Watermelon]

If that were true then there would never have been a president who ran for re-election and lost. All of them had over 50% of the voters wanting them gone.

[Mountain Man]

It depends on who is polled and how the question is asked. I once participated in a phone survey with the following questions:

1) Are you in favor of raising personal income taxes?
2) Are you in favor of raising business taxes?
3) Are you more in favor of raising personal income taxes, or business taxes?

No matter how these questions are answered, the headline can read "Majority of those surveyed say they are in favor of raising taxes, but opinions divide on whether it should apply to personal income or businesses". But is that really an accurate reflection of public opinion?

So you ask the questions one way, and 50% say they favor impeachment and removal from office. Asked another way, and that figure could easily go up or down. I also have no doubt that there are many on the left who are in favor even if the evidence against Trump is inconclusive -- or in this case, non-existent.

[oxmixmudd]

In Trump's case the polls are probably even more inaccurate because they're undoubtedly a lot of undercover Trump supporters that won't openly admit it because of the stigma. Folks that are polled about that probably don't even have a clue why he's being impeached, but they know that it's just the proper societal etiquette (and also fear of not getting physically attacked) to say you hate Trump.

That is quite the bit of excuse making there seanD.

[oxmixmudd]

I have not embraced conspiracy theories pix. The fact trump tried to extort Ukraine using Congressionally allocated funds isn't a conspiracy theory, it is what the evidence shows. We have the testimomies of career state department officials, ambassadors, a call transcript and Trump and Mulvaney's own words, and Trump's own history of asking for help from other countries.

For you to call that a 'conspiracy theory' is ... well ... a conspiracy theory

[rogue06]

I have not embraced conspiracy theories pix. The fact trump tried to extort Ukraine using Congressionally allocated funds isn't a conspiracy theory, it is what the evidence shows. We have the testimomies of career state department officials, ambassadors, a call transcript and Trump and Mulvaney's own words, and Trump's own history of asking for help from other countries.

For you to call that a 'conspiracy theory' is ... well ... a conspiracy theory

When there is no solid evidence supporting something and a great deal of it contradicting it, then offering unwavering and uncritical support for it sure sounds like conspiracy theory.

Just sayin.'

[oxmixmudd]

No matter who is in the White House, it is typical that roughly half of all voters want him gone. Trump isn't unique in that respect.

That isn't really true MM, Clinton enjoyed 60 ot 70% approval even while being impeached! And there is no equivalence between some subset of the population not liking the president and wanting someone else in office and 50% wanting that same president impeached and removed from office. Looking back on the Clinton Impeachment, there is no comparison. I would guess one must go back to Nixon for anything even close. And even then, I'm not sure that in today's climate Nixon would have felt the need to resign. What Nixon did was no worse than what Trump has done. So the difference is that in Nixon's day all parties valued the constitution and the rule of law and especially the integrity of the election process more than they did retaining power. And the public had far less tolerance for the sort of shenanigans Trump is engaged in.

[oxmixmudd]

When there is no solid evidence supporting something and a great deal of it contradicting it, then offering unwavering and uncritical support for it sure sounds like conspiracy theory.

Just sayin.'

I watched a good bit of the hearings and read a good bit of the testimony. And there is no correlation between that content and your comment above as it relates to what Trump did to Ukraine.

[rogue06]

And that shows what a difference an acquiescent press that will lie and tell the public that it was all about sex (no, it was about lying under oath -- perjury) compared to being saddled with a rabidly hostile press that will lie about the nature of the "witnesses" and evidence.

[rogue06]

I watched a good bit of the hearings and read a good bit of the testimony. And there is no correlation between that content and your comment above as it relates to what Trump did to Ukraine.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you also maintain that Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election, that the transcript of the call Trump-Zelensky call shows a demand for quid pro quo, and that the witnesses were all giving direct testimony rather than repeating second, third and even fourth hand hearsay.

[Watermelon]

It depends on who is polled and how the question is asked. I once participated in a phone survey with the following questions:

1) Are you in favor of raising personal income taxes?
2) Are you in favor of raising business taxes?
3) Are you more in favor of raising personal income taxes, or business taxes?

No matter how these questions are answered, the headline can read "Majority of those surveyed say they are in favor of raising taxes, but opinions divide on whether it should apply to personal income or businesses". But is that really an accurate reflection of public opinion?

So you ask the questions one way, and 50% say they favor impeachment and removal from office. Asked another way, and that figure could easily go up or down. I also have no doubt that there are many on the left who are in favor even if the evidence against Trump is inconclusive -- or in this case, non-existent.

[Cow Poke]

There's also the fact that a plurality did not want Trump elected in the first place.

If there were an "electoral college" sort of filter applied to the polls, the results might be quite different.

I haven't taken the time to see the way the question was asked, or what alternatives were offered, but that ONE POLL seems to be a fixation for the hate-Trump-all-the-time crowd.

[oxmixmudd]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you also maintain that Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election, that the transcript of the call Trump-Zelensky call shows a demand for quid pro quo, and that the witnesses were all giving direct testimony rather than repeating second, third and even fourth hand hearsay.

Those are corrupted assessments of my actual claims. So you stand corrected.

The issue with Ukraine is not something any single line of evidence shows. For example, the call transcript shows Trump asking Zelinsky for a 'favor' relating to investigating

1) Biden (and Burisma per testimony)
2) a debunked conspiracy theory concerning Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election.

When a person in power asks for a favor of a subordinate, it is not necessarily merely a 'favor'. In fact, from the subordinate's perspective, that unequal position requires they take this 'favor' as more a condition on the antecedent or even as a command - even if the person in power claims there are no strings attached. And the fact the subordinate can be implicitly coerced in such a way is why there are laws against this sort of thing.

consider this article on abuse of authority in the workplace:

https://work.chron.com/abuse-authori...lace-8178.html

in it we find this:

Source: above

Financial malfeasance
Requiring employees to perform personal tasks
Verbal intimidation

© Copyright Original Source

I have bolded the two that apply here.

So this request for a 'favor' is not by any means innocent or without implication of quid pro quo. Trump asks for that favor in relation to a requested meeting at the white house. So there is a direct tie to the meeting and the investigation. Exactly how much of a tie exists, whether or not Trump would hold non-compliance with the favor as a strict condition for the meeting is not clearly established in the call transcript itself. But the fact Trump has connected them is. And the fact Trump holds power over Ukraine makes that tie a likely abuse of power. Especially given Trump's history of exactly those kinds of ties and quid pro quo directives in his life as a businessman. ESPECIALLY in light of recorded conversations with his 'fixer' and others where he clearly gets others to do his bidding using exactly that same sort of implicit language.

Your denial of what I make clear above is the dishonest part of your claim about me in your reply. These are real issues. Companies get sued over violations. Managers get fired. Criminal entities make use of these sorts of techniques to create plausible deniability all the time. To claim there is 'no indication of quid pro quo' in the transcript then is simply a lie. There is an indication of quid pro quo, even a strong indication given DT's historical use of such language, but not proof.

And we could have a meaninful discussion if you, or MM, or pix, or CP, could admit that the implication exists, but there is no proof. That is where the truth lives concerning the transcript. The truth is not as Trump and the GOP claims - no indication of quid pro quo in the transcript. And likewise, the truth is not 'the transcript proves quid pro quo'. The truth is between the two.

To establish there was quid pro quo requires the additional testimony and facts gleaned in the investigations applied to the entire issue in a logical, deductive manner. When that is done, the potentially innocent 'alternative' possibilities' that exist as theoretical implications of the 'favor' requested in the transcript are eliminated beyond reasonable doubt.

[Cow Poke]

And we could have a meaninful discussion if you, or MM, or pix, or CP, could admit that the implication exists, but there is no proof. ....

A) I'm minding my own business and leaving you alone
2) I honestly don't think it's possible to have a meaningful discussion with you on this issue, Jim, because you seem far more emotionally involved than intellectually involved.
C) Once again, you are dishonestly (though I believe it's due to ignorance or prejudice, not dishonesty per se) misrepresenting my position and lumping me in with others who have beliefs that differ from my own.

Now, what "implication", exactly, is it you wish for me to admit exists?

ETA: I'll take a gamble here --- and suppose you're talking about the "implication" of a QPQ in the Ukraine situation.

I believe I've stated before that QPQ is done all the time in international relations. We don't just give foreign aid because we love another country - we do it, at least in part, because we hope to influence them to do or not do certain things. That's clearly "this for that".

[lilpixieofterror]

Those are corrupted assessments of my actual claims. So you stand corrected.

The issue with Ukraine is not something any single line of evidence shows. For example, the call transcript shows Trump asking Zelinsky for a 'favor' relating to investigating

1) Biden (and Burisma per testimony)
2) a debunked conspiracy theory concerning Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election.

When a person in power asks for a favor of a subordinate, it is not necessarily merely a 'favor'. In fact, from the subordinate's perspective, that unequal position requires they take this 'favor' as more a condition on the antecedent or even as a command - even if the person in power claims there are no strings attached. And the fact the subordinate can be implicitly coerced in such a way is why there are laws against this sort of thing.

consider this article on abuse of authority in the workplace:

https://work.chron.com/abuse-authori...lace-8178.html

in it we find this:

Source: above

Financial malfeasance
Requiring employees to perform personal tasks
Verbal intimidation

© Copyright Original Source

I have bolded the two that apply here.

So this request for a 'favor' is not by any means innocent or without implication of quid pro quo. Trump asks for that favor in relation to a requested meeting at the white house. So there is a direct tie to the meeting and the investigation. Exactly how much of a tie exists, whether or not Trump would hold non-compliance with the favor as a strict condition for the meeting is not clearly established in the call transcript itself. But the fact Trump has connected them is. And the fact Trump holds power over Ukraine makes that tie a likely abuse of power. Especially given Trump's history of exactly those kinds of ties and quid pro quo directives in his life as a businessman. ESPECIALLY in light of recorded conversations with his 'fixer' and others where he clearly gets others to do his bidding using exactly that same sort of implicit language.

Your denial of what I make clear above is the dishonest part of your claim about me in your reply. These are real issues. Companies get sued over violations. Managers get fired. Criminal entities make use of these sorts of techniques to create plausible deniability all the time. To claim there is 'no indication of quid pro quo' in the transcript then is simply a lie. There is an indication of quid pro quo, even a strong indication given DT's historical use of such language, but not proof.

And we could have a meaninful discussion if you, or MM, or pix, or CP, could admit that the implication exists, but there is no proof. That is where the truth lives concerning the transcript. The truth is not as Trump and the GOP claims - no indication of quid pro quo in the transcript. And likewise, the truth is not 'the transcript proves quid pro quo'. The truth is between the two.

To establish there was quid pro quo requires the additional testimony and facts gleaned in the investigations applied to the entire issue in a logical, deductive manner. When that is done, the potentially innocent 'alternative' possibilities' that exist as theoretical implications of the 'favor' requested in the transcript are eliminated beyond reasonable doubt.

[Watermelon]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you also maintain that Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election, that the transcript of the call Trump-Zelensky call shows a demand for quid pro quo, and that the witnesses were all giving direct testimony rather than repeating second, third and even fourth hand hearsay.