The Impeachment Trial

[Watermelon]

OK so given that, if Trump did tell Ukraine they had to investigate the Burisma mess, that would be legal unless he did it for personal motives, right?

So far they have not proven Trump did anything for personal motives. That is just the Democrats accusations. Which is denied by everyone directly involved, including Ukraine. You keep screaming "extortion! he kept the money from Ukraine to force an investigation" -- well so what? Unless you can prove he did it for personal gain, it is perfectly legal as you just admitted.

[Sam]

I didn't say anything about laws, I said there were procedures in place.

And Trump circumvented those procedures in outing a likely Israeli spy deeply embedded in Syria to the Russian Foreign Minister. Because, as President, he can. It's a bad idea to have a president who would just hand out codeword-server information like that but he can -- and Trump did.

So the idea that Trump can't clear Bolton to deny something false is in his book is laughably absurd.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

We've seen multiple testimonies that many people saw clear evidence this was all about hitting out at Biden.

At least that was the rumor being passed around at the water cooler.

[Watermelon]

Because Trump isn't a mob boss strong-arming subordinates who are obligated to keep him happy.

[oxmixmudd]

At least that was the rumor being passed around at the water cooler.

You've allowed your fielty to Trump to drag you down into almost unconscionable disdain for people that have risked their careers to make sure the truth has been heard.

[Sparko]

The question is whether or not Bolton can deny the reported content in his book. If, for example, I say that Bolton accuses Trump in his book of murdering the Last Unicorn to serve at a celebratory dinner for Franklin Graham, Bolton can release a statement denying that his book contains any such allegations.

"The bank robber walked out of the bank before the clerk handed him the bag of money" is one heckuva defense you got there.

--Sam

But then he would lose a lot of curious book buyers at presale.

[Sparko]

The claim is that Trump intended to personally benefit as the announcement would discredit one of Trumps main political opponents thus increasing his chances for reelection.

and if Biden is indeed guilty of personally using HIS position as VP to benefit himself and his son using extortion, then we would WANT to know that and to keep him from running, yes?

And if Biden ISN'T guilty and that comes out, why then it makes Trump look foolish and he would LOSE support.

The only way Trump benefits is if Biden IS guilty, in which case he deserves to be stopped from running for all of our sakes.

Either way, it would be up to the people at the ballot box to decide. As it should be.

[Sparko]

And people (including the Ukraine President himself) said that there was absolutely no credibility behind the Trump corruption claim.

[Sam]

But then he would lose a lot of curious book buyers at presale.

The argument is that Bolton can't deny what's reportedly in his book, thus preserving the idea that he does not have that direct witness testimony of the President's motives.

The argument is not that he's not denying it because preserving a false account drives book sales. One can make that argument but it's significantly weaker than the former, which is already fatally weak.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

You've allowed your fielty to Trump to drag you down into almost unconscionable disdain for people that have risked their careers to make sure the truth has been heard.

Nobody is has sworn fealty to Trump, you insufferable ass (and at least I know how to spell "fealty").

The fact is that nobody who testified before the House said that they had ever received any direct instruction from the President or anybody else to make any kind of offer to Ukraine tying the release of aid to investigating the Bidens. All we heard were presumptions and "I heard from a guy who heard from guy" hearsay. So even if what Bolton says is true, that Trump floated the idea in a top level meeting, it would seem that nothing was ever put into action.

[Watermelon]

and if Biden is indeed guilty of personally using HIS position as VP to benefit himself and his son using extortion, then we would WANT to know that and to keep him from running, yes?

And if Biden ISN'T guilty and that comes out, why then it makes Trump look foolish and he would LOSE support.

The only way Trump benefits is if Biden IS guilty, in which case he deserves to be stopped from running for all of our sakes.

Either way, it would be up to the people at the ballot box to decide. As it should be.

[Sparko]

Hillary was pronounced guilty then let off the hook by Comey.

They actually had the evidence on her.

And Biden was bragging how he personally extorted Ukraine to fire the prosecutor. On video. And the fact that the person he got fired had ties to his Son's "job" is enough to raise eyebrows and be investigated.

[Watermelon]

Nobody is has sworn fealty to Trump, you insufferable ass (and at least I know how to spell "fealty").

The fact is that nobody who testified before the House said that they had ever received any direct instruction from the President or anybody else to make any kind of offer to Ukraine tying the release of aid to investigating the Bidens. All we heard were presumptions and "I heard from a guy who heard from guy" hearsay. So even if what Bolton says is true, that Trump floated the idea in a top level meeting, it would seem that nothing was ever put into action.

[lilpixieofterror]

You've allowed your fielty to Trump to drag you down into almost unconscionable disdain for people that have risked their careers to make sure the truth has been heard.

[lilpixieofterror]