Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, October 03, 2019

President Trump on Thursday publicly called on China to investigate a political rival, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., in an extraordinary presidential request to a foreign country for help that could benefit him in the 2020 election.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Mr. Trump has defended his conversation with Mr. Zelensky as "perfect" even after a reconstructed transcript of the call was released that showed him seeking help from Ukraine in investigating the Bidens. And he doubled down on his request on Thursday.

Fta

#1 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-03 11:50 AM | Reply

Is he trying to get impeached or is he just that dumb... it's getting hard to tell

#2 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-10-03 12:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Nancy gave in enough rope, and now he is hanging himself. Most criminals do.

Brilliant.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2019-10-03 12:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#2

I don't think he ever really wanted to be President.

#4 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-10-03 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ukraine, Australia, China. China? This is like Nixon on the South Lawn saying he knows a few people that should burglarize the DNC offices at Watergate.

#5 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-10-03 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Is he trying to get impeached or is he just that dumb...

#2 | Posted by 503jc69 at

Donald Trump is a mentally ill criminal. The prisons are full of them.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Mr.Trump made the comments about China ahead of the latest round of trade talks, which are set to take place next week"

Is the implication China will get a better deal if they help him?

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 12:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"I don't think he ever really wanted to be President.

#4 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT "

I don't think so, either and I've said that all along. I think he was as surprised as the rest of the country on November 9, 2016.

#8 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-03 12:11 PM | Reply

#4 - I agree.

#9 | Posted by kudzu at 2019-10-03 12:12 PM | Reply

Abuse of power. Dictionary definition.

Meanwhile, with a 7.425% stake in the D.C. hotel, Ivanka Trump reported $7.8 million from that alone
drudge.com

Donald Jr makes deals all over the world because his father is president:

Donald Jr collecting payments in the Phillipines and India
pbs.twimg.com

Donald Jr collecting payments in Canada (the money's from Malaysia)
pbs.twimg.com

#10 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-03 12:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

This is the last effing straw.

We have fought no wars against Russia and Ukraine, we have fought at least 2 against China.

This criminal has to be removed from office.

#11 | Posted by kudzu at 2019-10-03 12:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

To #10 - It's ok for the children of political leaders to make those deals. It's illegal to investigate them.

#12 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2019-10-03 12:16 PM | Reply

Trump must have kept all the shovels used in groundbreaking ceremonies.

He keeps digging his hole deeper ... or one of his undocumented employees is

#13 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-03 12:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Hunter Biden's $50K a month is nothing. Trump's spawn is pocketing millions since the old man took over.

#14 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-10-03 12:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

This is the last effing straw

okay.jpg

#15 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-10-03 12:18 PM | Reply

okay.jpg

#15 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake

You support Trump getting China to help him with re-election? Or do you run from blunt, pertinent questions?

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 12:20 PM | Reply

This criminal has to be removed from office.

#11 | Posted by kudzu at 2019

This criminal, and thus tyrant, need to be removed from office.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump hates his job.

#18 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-10-03 12:21 PM | Reply

Trump hates his job.

#18 | Posted by lee_the_agent

This behavior is not an example of Trump hating his job. This behavior is an example of cornered rathood.

#19 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 12:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump is edging ever nearer to doing something that's going to make the country either declare for him or the Republic.

There are people on this very thread who have already declared for him. Let's see if more show.

#20 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 12:24 PM | Reply

Awesome mem: twitter.com

#21 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-10-03 12:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Outsourcing treason. Brilliant!

#22 | Posted by Hegel at 2019-10-03 12:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is the last effing straw.
We have fought no wars against Russia and Ukraine, we have fought at least 2 against China.
This criminal has to be removed from office.

#11 | POSTED BY KUDZU AT 2019-10-03 12:16 PM | FLAG:

Easy way to do it is to beat him in the next election, but since losers like you only support losers that won't happen.

#23 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-10-03 12:33 PM | Reply

I don't think he ever really wanted to be President.

#4 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-10-03 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem is now he is trapped. He can't resign because that would damage his fragile ego. Impeachment is even a worse outcome. He tried rigging the DOJ to get him out of his obstruction of the Flynn investigation but now his hubris over Barr's fake exoneration report led him to do this Ukraine collusion that will hurt him. Worse still he dragged Pence, Pompeo and Barr into the mess that Rudy pushed him into. He counted on the DOJ being able to bury the phone calls on a secret server so no one would know about his extortion of Ukraine to make up dirt on Biden. He never counted on someone being so concerned over him selling out the country to promote his personal agenda they would go to IG and he figured they could hide the IG report like they tried. If the whistleblower did not ask the House intel committee staff about the procedures, they would have never known the IG's report was illegally hidden from Congress.

Now he is tying to extort China into making up dirt on Biden too.

He knows he is ufcked as soon as he is out of office. NYS has an indictment waiting for him on his campaign finance crime. There are crimes to be pursued in his fake charity too.

It ends badly for Conjob Don. He's a cornered spray tanned rat.

#24 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-10-03 12:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

To #10 - It's ok for the children of political leaders to make those deals. It's illegal to investigate them.

#12 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2019-10-03 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Saudi Arabia just paid Fine Piece of Ass Ivanka $100,000,000 for the Khashoggi coverup.

#25 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-10-03 12:36 PM | Reply

Easy way to do it is to beat him in the next election

#23 | Posted by fishpaw at

Can you convince Trump not to cheat for 2020? Do you even want to convince him? Do you not understand what this thread is about? Do you even care?

#26 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 12:39 PM | Reply

--------- must be waiting for Tucker Carlson's program before commenting in this thread.

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-03 12:52 PM | Reply

During the same remarks:

Also from the pool report: POTUS said Ukraine should investigate the Bidens. "I would say President Zelensky, if it was me, I would start an investigation into the Bidens," he said from the South Lawn. t.co
Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) October 3, 2019

Asked what he wanted President Zelensky to do about the Bidens, "If they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the Bidens." pic.twitter.com/CZ0ikrtEdp
Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) October 3, 2019

As one flabbergasted observer noted, this is exactly what Republicans have been denying that he said for the last two weeks.

#28 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-03 12:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I want my
I want my
I want my
Foreign interference in American democracy"
The Chinal lovin' "right".

#29 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-10-03 12:54 PM | Reply

Right there, on the South Lawn, in front of reporters, Trump asked a country with which he is involved in multibillion-dollar trade negotiations and another that is dependent on the United States for military aid to launch investigations into a political opponent to better his chances in the 2020 election.

#30 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-03 12:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

To #10 - It's ok for the children of political leaders to make those deals. It's illegal to investigate them.

#12 | POSTED BY NUKE_GENTLY

Where is the investigation? Please show me where any indication that the DOJ, the FBI, or anyone else had an open investigation into Hunter Biden prior to Trump's phone call.

I don't have a problem with our GOVERNMENT investigating nominees. (Though, I do have a problem with them not following the rules, as Comey did for the investigation of Hillary by talking about it publicly) But, it is not Trump's JOB to investigate people. And it is DEFINITELY NOT HIS JOB to blackmail FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS into investigating his political rivals.

If you feel you need to investigate your political opponents, you have to go STRICTLY by the book. Trump isn't even trying. Mainly because he knows that if he goes "by the book" then it will not go anywhere (since there is no there, there). And, if he does it "by the book" then it won't help him politically since the investigators are not allowed to comment on an investigation.

So, that is why he is sending his PERSONAL LAWYER to Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden instead of someone from the DoJ or the FBI.

But also, you have shown NOTHING that indicates that Hunter Biden did ANYTHING illegal. So, what are you investigating? And Ukraine has said they see no indication that Hunter Biden broke any of their laws. No investigative body in the US would open an investigation into it because there is no actual evidence of wrongdoing and going any further without any probably cause would be a violation of Hunter's civil rights. Which is why Trump felt it was necessary to pressure a foreign government to investigate INSTEAD, so that he can circumvent the constitution and disregard Hunter's civil rights.

And here we are, with all the (sic) conservatives piling on trying to defend Trump violating the rights of American citizens.

YOU definitely built that.

#31 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-03 12:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Asked about trade negotiations, this was his response:

Trump: "I have a lot of options on China, but if they don't do what we want, we have tremendous, tremendous power."

Ok, it's so out in the open even someone with 100/100 vision can see it.

Republicans? See anything wrong with that? Do ya?

Do you care about right vs wrong, the rule of law? American democracy? Fair elections?

#32 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-03 12:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

VIDEO via CSPAN:

twitter.com

#33 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-03 12:59 PM | Reply

BTW, the 'transcript' of Trump's call with Zelenskyy is not word-for-word. They have that locked down.

We need to see the full transcript.

It's marked "MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION," which is also not a transcript. And at the bottom of the first page, it says "Caution: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion." But even for that, The Washington Post notes, the document leaves questions. It's missing a tracking number one would expect to see on an official document that had been treated in the normal way for a record of such a call.

Then there's the question of what content is missing. A Post comparison to actual transcripts of two other calls between Trump and world leaders finds that this memorandum "includes about half the number of words that would be expected if the call had proceeded at the same or similar pace as the previous calls." Interpreters might have slowed things down, but it's awfully interesting.

#34 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-03 01:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Moral of the trump presidency - commit your crimes in secret, people get pissed. Commit them on camera or on twitter, everyone thinks it's okay.

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-03 01:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't think he ever really wanted to be President.

#4 | Posted by Whatsleft

Bingo. He wanted to whine that he got cheated and then start his own crazier-then-fox news network for everyone dumb enough to support him.

#36 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-03 01:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If trump is really kicking china's ass like he claims, why would they help him get re elected?

He's basically admitting that his presidency helps china more than a democrat would.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-03 01:09 PM | Reply

Donald Trump is a mentally ill criminal. The prisons are full of them.

#6 | Posted by Zed

Poor ones. Not rich ones. Rich people can do whatever they want in america.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-03 01:10 PM | Reply

Remember when Trump asked Russia to find Hillary's emails. And then there was a coordinated Russian attack on her servers and the DNC about 6 hours later?

This is coordinating with a foreign government to influence the election. And conservatives think this is how people in positions of power in our government should act. No wonder they think that all politicians are corrupt. Because ALL of THEIR politicians ARE, and they expect NOTHING MORE from them.

#39 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-03 01:14 PM | Reply

Ok, it's so out in the open even someone with 100/100 vision can see it.

#32 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

I have 20/400 vision (without my glasses) and I can clearly see that Nancy Pelosi was right all along; "If we just wait, Trump will impeach himself."

OCU

#40 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-10-03 01:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#38 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

"NO! Poor people are crazy, Jack. I'm eccentric."

#41 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-03 01:15 PM | Reply

If you like subpoena coladas and getting caught in Ukraine.

#42 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-10-03 01:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

www.scmp.com

China Grants Ivanka 5 new trademarks amid trade talks

www.apnews.com

The disclosure for her husband, Jared Kushner, shows that he took in hundreds of thousands of dollars from his holdings of New York City apartments and that he owns a stake in the real estate investment firm Cadre worth at least $25 million.

Also, this month the Guardian newspaper reported that Cadre received $90 million in foreign funding from an opaque offshore vehicle since Kushner entered the White House.

www.citizensforethics.org

Before taking office, President Trump promised that the Trump Organization would pursue "no new foreign deals" while president. His eponymous company has continued, however, to develop international projects that were already underway before he took office, including taking them into new phases of development. For example, according to Indonesian press reports, next week Donald Trump Jr. will attend a pre launch event in Jakarta on August 13th for two of those ongoing projects in Bali and Lido, Indonesia.

#43 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-10-03 01:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#43 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

That is fine because it is Republicans doing it.

Everyone knows... Republican corruption is FINE.

But it is only the APPEARANCE of a POSSIBILITY of a Democrat being involved in corrupting that means we need to rip up the Constitution and ask foreign governments to investigate our political nominees.

#44 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-03 01:52 PM | Reply

I have no idea what Trump said and in what context. But I can be sure that the editors of the NY Times twisted it around to mean what they want to mean.

I'm sure the Dems are going to vote to impeach Trump. And it looks like the Dems have deluded themselves into thinking it will be a lawful impeachment that bypasses a full House and Senate vote. At that point, you people have gone full blown insane!

#45 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 02:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Your President just committed a FELONY on national TV. Are you still going to defend him? Stop talking about Biden and focus on the issue at hand and respond to that. Joe Biden's son is not our President and nothing he did or does has any relevance to your answer

#46 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-03 02:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I have no idea what Trump said and in what context. But I can be sure that the editors of the NY Times twisted it around to mean what they want to mean.

I'm sure the Dems are going to vote to impeach Trump. And it looks like the Dems have deluded themselves into thinking it will be a lawful impeachment that bypasses a full House and Senate vote. At that point, you people have gone full blown insane!

#45 | Posted by Ray

What the public has seen about Trump's phone call with Zelenskyy is only a "MEMORANDUM" of the phone call. The full transcript is most likely even more damning.

And now he's gone and committed a crime on the front lawn of the White House in front of the world press.

Seeking foreign aid to help his reelection is a crime. He did it right out in the open today.

Here's the VIDEO

#47 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-03 02:29 PM | Reply

RAY

Today, Trump asked a country with which he is involved in multibillion-dollar trade negotiations (China) and another that is dependent on the United States for military aid (the Ukraine) to launch investigations into a political opponent to better his chances in the 2020 election.

That is a crime under U.S. law.

Will you or will you not acknowledge the undeniable?

#48 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-03 02:32 PM | Reply

"Mr.Trump made the comments about China ahead of the latest round of trade talks, which are set to take place next week"

Is the implication China will get a better deal if they help him?

#7 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-10-03 12:10 PM | FLAG:

yep. he'll show up during negotiations and demand they fabricate something for him to use in the next election. It's no surprise he hasn't brought up Hong Kong yet. He's waiting to back Hong Kong at the right moment to punish China for not doing his bidding.

#49 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-03 02:36 PM | Reply

"Will you or will you not acknowledge the undeniable?"

You know he won't.

None of the Deplorables will.

Here's how to tell if you are a Deplorable:

If you think it's okay for President Trump to ask Ukraine, Australia, China, whoever to dig up dirt on his political opponents in exchange for favors from the United States, you are a Deplorable.

If you think it's a crime, you're not a Deplorable.

It's really just that simple.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-03 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Dems have deluded themselves into thinking it will be a lawful"

excuse me? you're worried about the impeachment respecting every tiny nuance of the law, when the million crimes and lies of Donnie do not offend you? what a joke.

#51 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-03 02:39 PM | Reply

So. Biden is and needs to be investigated just like Hillary and the DNC are being investigated. asking for help is these investigations does not break any law. Dems have been doing the same thing for years as Barr will expose soon

#52 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-10-03 02:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"asking for help is these investigations does not break any law."

^
Maverick outs himself as a Deplorable.

Who's next?

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-03 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

asking for help is these investigations does not break any law.

#52 | Posted by Maverick

Tucker Carson on already?

#54 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 02:54 PM | Reply

Your President just committed a FELONY on national TV.

First of all Trump is not my president. I don't recognize the State as a legitimate authority.

What felony?. Trump said it in a press conference at the White House.

"China should start an investigation into the Bidens," Trump said in remarks to reporters outside the White House. Trump said he hadn't directly asked Chinese President Xi Jinping to investigate Biden and his son Hunter but it's "certainly something we could start thinking about."
apnews.com

Trump is trolling you people. He's purposely pushing your buttons. Come November 2020, you people will have thoroughly discredited yourselves as crazy.

#55 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 02:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

asking for help is these investigations does not break any law.

#52 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-10-03 02:47 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

And, if it affects the 2020 election in Trump's direction, it's fully justified.

#56 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 02:56 PM | Reply

Trump is trolling you people. He's purposely pushing your buttons.

#55 | Posted by Ray at 2019

I see a crazy man getting crazier the deeper he sinks. Trump is doing these things because he can't help himself; they're symptoms.

#57 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 02:57 PM | Reply

What felony?. Trump said it in a press conference at the White House.

#55 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10

It's only against the law when done in private?

#58 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 02:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

excuse me? you're worried about the impeachment respecting every tiny nuance of the law, when the million crimes and lies of Donnie do not offend you? what a joke.
#51 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER


Tiny nuance? What are you smoking? The Democratic Party can't unilaterally impeach Trump.

#59 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 02:59 PM | Reply

"asking for help is these investigations does not break any law."

In that case, I can't wait for Joe Biden or some other Dem to ask foreign countries to turn over any information, especially SIGNIT, that they have on Trump and his associates. I'm sure they will be greatly rewarded by our press.

#60 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 03:01 PM | Reply

It's only against the law when done in private?
#58 | POSTED BY ZED

I do know that the US has a formal agreement with the Ukraine for mutual cooperation on criminal matters. An agreement signed by Bill Clinton.

Show me where in the law, the president can't ask another foreign leader to do a criminal investigation of American citizens.

That Biden and son are corrupt means nothing to you people.

#61 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 03:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

I see a crazy man getting crazier the deeper he sinks. Trump is doing these things because he can't help himself; they're symptoms.
#57 | POSTED BY ZED

To be frank, Zed. That's what I see in you. What Trump said at a press conference is, to a crazy person, an impeachable offence.

#62 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 03:13 PM | Reply

I have no idea what Trump said and in what context. But I can be sure that the editors of the NY Times twisted it around to mean what they want to mean.

#45 | Posted by Ray

haha "I'm uninformed, but I trust a lifelong conman, sociopath, egomaniac, cheater, and proven liar over professional journalists whose ability to feed themselves comes from their credibility."

#63 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-03 03:21 PM | Reply

That Biden and son are corrupt means nothing to you people.

#61 | Posted by Ray

You can either

A - support trump
or
B - oppose corruption

You cant do both.

#64 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-03 03:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

B. Drain the swamp for real

#65 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-10-03 03:23 PM | Reply

This is a nothingberder, it has already been proven that colluding with foreign countries to interfere in elections is perfectly Constitutional and ethically sound. Ask any Repubican.

#66 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-03 03:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#63 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Whatever satisfies your beliefs. I try not to get bogged down reasoning with crazy people.

#67 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 03:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

impeach this unamerican pos.

#68 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-10-03 03:29 PM | Reply

I have no idea what Trump said and in what context. But I can be sure that the editors of the NY Times twisted it around to mean what they want to mean.
#45 | Posted by Ray

Checks notes: hmm, here is the text, the context, the video, the admission by the president that the text is accurate, confirmation by 300 independent sources. Oh, a Drumpf supporter doesn't believe any of it because Q. Got it. Guess we'll all just have to ignore this because we all know the POTUS* has never lied about anything ever.

#69 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-03 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What felony?. Trump said it in a press conference at the White House.

#55 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10

It's only against the law when done in private?

#58 | POSTED BY ZED

But if the President does it in public with a red tie during chopper talk then it is not against the law!!!

Everyone knows that!

I think it is in article 1 of 2 Corinthians.

What a sad chapter in American history.

When will you deplorables get your fill of all the lies? (12,000 plus now)

#70 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-10-03 03:29 PM | Reply

I don't recognize the State as a legitimate authority.

#55 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2019-10-03 02:55 PM | REPLY |

Ray is even worse than a deplorable. He's a sovereign citizen who thinks he has the ablitilty to not recognize the government

Who is your president, Ray? Who has legitimate authority? Which part of the constitution do you think you have the right to opt out of?

#71 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-03 03:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I try not to get bogged down reasoning with crazy people."

You don't reason with anyone, Ray.
No need, since you already know everything.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-03 03:34 PM | Reply

I think it is in article 1 of 2 Corinthians.
What a sad chapter in American history.
When will you deplorables get your fill of all the lies? (12,000 plus now)

#70 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2019-10-03 03:29 PM | REPLY |

you have to ask the other corinthian if you can find him

#73 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-03 03:35 PM | Reply

"B. Drain the swamp for real
#65 | POSTED BY GONOLES92"

You don't even mind that you got suckered, do you?

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-03 03:36 PM | Reply

Show me where in the law, the president can't ask another foreign leader to do a criminal investigation of American citizens.

The American citizen in question happens to be a potential presidential candidate, which makes the "contribution/thing of value" an investigation into said political opponent.

30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92"225, title III, 319, formerly 324, as added Pub. L. 94"283, title I, 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493 ; renumbered 319, Pub. L. 96"187, title I, 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354 ; amended Pub. L. 107"155, title III, 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96 , 109.)

How about you show us where, in the law, the president has the authority to withhold military aid in exchange for a political favor?

#75 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-03 03:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Whatever satisfies your beliefs. I try not to get bogged down reasoning with crazy people.

#67 | Posted by Ray

Trump defenders dont get to call anyone crazy, stupid, or anything else.

Stop supporting trump and you can use those accusations again.

#76 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-03 03:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

impeach this unamerican pos.

#68 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE AT 2019-10-03 03:29 PM | FLAG:

Fake news!!!
What's more American than being willfully ignorant and blustering?

#77 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2019-10-03 03:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

B. Drain the swamp for real

#65 | Posted by GOnoles92

So you mean impeach trump, and elect warren or sanders to fix the country.

#78 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-03 03:41 PM | Reply

John Dean @JohnWDean

Do Trump and the GOP want Biden, Bernie and Elizabeth to call on all foreign countries to provide dirt on Trump and his kid? His new tactic with NO RULE OF LAW can't be a one way activity. So 2020 is an election with no rules? That what Trump wants! ABSURD!!

#79 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 03:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Show me where in the law, the president can't ask another foreign leader to do a criminal investigation of American citizens.

#61 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2019-10-03 03:10 PM | REPLY

"Get in touch with my personal lawyer, Rudy, about Joe Biden and his ne'er-do-well kid" is not requesting a foreign leader to do a criminal investigation of an American citizen. It's asking a foreign leader for dirt on a political opponent. The fact that the Dotard's other de facti personal lawyer also happens to hold the office of Attorney General doesn't make it any better.

#80 | Posted by anton at 2019-10-03 03:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Had Trump hired Perkins Coie instead of tapping Rudy this would all be good.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-03 03:47 PM | Reply

Tiny nuance? What are you smoking? The Democratic Party can't unilaterally impeach Trump.

#59 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2019-10-03 02:59 PM | FLAG:

It would mean a heck of a lot if no republican stood up and voted for impeachment.

#82 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-03 03:48 PM | Reply

Maybe Ray caught some of that old timer's disease and he's just wandering around his piles of gold asking questions to the air.

#83 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-03 03:49 PM | Reply

Do Trump and the GOP want Biden, Bernie and Elizabeth to call on all foreign countries to provide dirt on Trump and his kid?

Trump and his kid who are benefiting from Trump's presidency? Donald Jr flying all around the world being photographed making deals?

Or the Trump D.C. hotel (and his other properties) becoming the new way to bribe a president? Events being held at the D.C. hotel that have been traditionally been held at the WH but at the expense of many thousands of dollars ending up in Trump's and his children's pockets?

For example:

Ivanka reported $7.8 million in income from the D.C. hotel with only a 7% ownership stake. That's well over $100,000,000 earned by Trump from that hotel alone, where the GOP and foreign dignitaries have lined up to line Trump's pockets by booking rooms and events there.

Instead of 'draining the swamp,' they simply created a new cesspool of grifting.

#84 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-03 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How about you show us where, in the law, the president has the authority to withhold military aid in exchange for a political favor?

#75 | Posted by chuffy

Or dangle trade negotiations with the Chinese?

We have no idea what's in the other calls they secreted away, but Trump stood on the front drive at the WH this morning and told the Chinese and Ukranians he wants them to do something for him. A felony. On national TV.

#85 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-03 04:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump to right wing dictators across the world:

"If you like how I've crippled America, help me win again and I'll really fkkk it up! Seriously, I'm the best, at bankruptcy! I'm using all my skills at destroying businesses and casinos, and applying it to the federal government! I'm the greatest! Buy Trump steak! I swear it's meat! Did you see me on the Apprentice? You're fired! No, you're fired! It just comes so naturally. Please. Dig up dirt on Biden. My wife won't look at me naked unless I pay her. I tell her it's yuge! Just look how big it is in my hand! She cries, a lot."

#86 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-10-03 04:18 PM | Reply

So you mean impeach trump, and elect warren or sanders to fix the country.

#78 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I'd prefer buttigieg tulsi or yang tbh

#87 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-10-03 04:23 PM | Reply

Right wing financier Rebekah Mercer funded operatives who took aim at former U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden, seeing him as the likely frontrunner for the 2020 Democratic nomination.

-Bloomberg

Remember when they said that was not cool to do? Yeah, they love it.

#88 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-03 04:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It would mean a heck of a lot if no republican stood up and voted for impeachment.
#82 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

And maybe not enough Democrats for a House vote to impeach.

#89 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 04:35 PM | Reply

I'm just surprised that Ray gets Internet in his bunker...must have run alot of cable

Lol at not recognizing the government.. I'm sure they recognize you.

Good luck getting real Id next year.

#90 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-10-03 04:43 PM | Reply

And maybe not enough Democrats for a House vote to impeach.

#89 | POSTED BY RAY

The House has 226 votes to support impeachment right now. 218 is the magic number. There are already enough votes in favor of impeachment in the House.

#91 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-03 04:51 PM | Reply

If you don't recognize the government of the USA, your opinion is meaningless on the topic.

#92 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-03 04:53 PM | Reply

#91 | POSTED BY CHUFFY

Then what's stopping Pelosi from calling for a House vote?
Or is that soon to come?

#93 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 04:55 PM | Reply

And maybe not enough Democrats for a House vote to impeach.

#89 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2019-10-03 04:35 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Clinton was impeached for being dishonest.

#94 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-03 04:57 PM | Reply

If you don't recognize the government of the USA, your opinion is meaningless on the topic.
#92 | POSTED BY CHUFFY

As if I care.

#95 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 04:59 PM | Reply

Lol at not recognizing the government.. I'm sure they recognize you.
#90 | POSTED BY 503JC69

Every year on April 15th.

#96 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 05:02 PM | Reply

#93

Your opinions are meaningless, so your questions are as well. Have fun barking into the void, those of us who have skin in the game don't owe you any answers.

#97 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-03 05:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Awesome mem: twitter.com
#21 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT AT 2019-10-03 12:27 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

From the twitter comments:

Not that it matters but the "Ukraine gas exec" appears to be an American businessman that Hunter Biden has known for years. So the video is misleading at best.

#98 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 05:11 PM | Reply

I try not to get bogged down reasoning with crazy people.
#67 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2019-10-03 03:27 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

Then you come here and converse with the DR ingrates why?

#99 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 05:23 PM | Reply

Then what's stopping Pelosi from calling for a House vote?
Or is that soon to come?
#93 | POSTED BY RAY

I've been asking the same damn question for months in regards to obstruction. Now, there's even MORE evidence of obstruction.

I don't want to give Pelosi any credit, but she's providing Trump just enough rope to hang himself. If this is the tip of the ice berg, which it's playing out to be, Trump is in serious trouble; his unraveling in front of the press and behind closed doors is positive evidence towards this probability.

#100 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 05:31 PM | Reply

I don't want to give Pelosi any credit, but she's providing Trump just enough rope to hang himself.

#100 | Posted by rstybeach11

She did that by accident. She's a coward who doesnt even want to impeach and put the dems on the right side of history. Ukraine made that impossible. That's a result of trump's stupidity, not her strategy.

#101 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-03 06:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Then you come here and converse with the DR ingrates why?
#99 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

I get opinions from other sources too. It gives me a sense of trends.

#102 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 06:09 PM | Reply

I don't want to give Pelosi any credit, but she's providing Trump just enough rope to hang himself.
#100 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

It could be the other way around, that Trump is playing the Democrats.
We'll see.

#103 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 06:11 PM | Reply

Your opinions are meaningless, so your questions are as well. Have fun barking into the void, those of us who have skin in the game don't owe you any answers.
#97 | POSTED BY CHUFFY

But I certainly generate a lot of attacks.

#104 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 06:14 PM | Reply

That's a result of trump's stupidity, not her strategy.
#101 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That's what it seems like for sure.

It could be the other way around, that Trump is playing the Democrats.
We'll see.
#103 | POSTED BY RAY

I'm sincerely interested in your opinion regarding this as I cannot come up with a single instance where Trump intentionally and successfully played the Dems, beyond the actual result of 2016. Can you assist?

#105 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 06:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#105 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

As I understand the issues, Trump was well within his authority to ask the President of Ukraine to look into the Biden matter. When the Democrats blew that up into an impeachable offense, then Trump understood he was facing an implacable enemy. Beginning after the Mueller investigation, one part of his strategy is to make known that he's out to expose Democrat corruption. The other is to say things on Twitter or in press conferences that get the Democrats and the media all excited. The subject of this thread is one example.

I think Ukrainegate is an attempt to deflect attention away from Democrat corruption as Russiagate was to deflect attention from the Clinton's corruption. He's forced the Democrats into a losing position a second time. All he has to do to play victim.

If I'm right, the Democrats stand to lose the House, Senate and Presidency in 2020, maybe by a wide majority.

We'll see.

#106 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 07:18 PM | Reply

I think Ukrainegate is an attempt to deflect attention away from Democrat corruption

#106 | Posted by Ray

What democrat corruption? You reflexively take the side of an obvious lifelong con man. That says everything about you.

#107 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-03 07:26 PM | Reply

The firing of Bolton may be another factor. It proved that Trump doesn't want war. He has enemies in the Deep State who are rabidly committed to war with Iran. They want him out. This so-called whistle blower is really a CIA stooge. The CIA even changed the rules to allow hearsay as legitimate evidence.

The CIA and the Democrats are in an alliance.

#108 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 07:27 PM | Reply

the president is publically asking our foreign trade adversary to get political dirt on an election opponent. its OVER. trump would have been better off to actually shoot someone.

#109 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-10-03 07:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"He has enemies in the Deep State"

What about the greys? and the NWO?

Illuminati?

Zombies?

#110 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-10-03 07:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

What democrat corruption? You reflexively take the side of an obvious lifelong con man. That says everything about you.
#107 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

The man is blind because he refuses to see.

The Clinton Foundation was selling favors on the promise Hillary would be the next president.
They rigged the primary vote so Sanders would not get a majority.
According to Trump: "Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn't want to follow!"

It's been buried by the media. Now Trump has reason and resources to bring it to surface.

One reason Hillary lost the election, what little time she was campaigning, was spent giving speeches to bankers where the money is.

#111 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 07:41 PM | Reply

To be frank, Zed. That's what I see in you. What Trump said at a press conference is, to a crazy person, an impeachable offence.

#62 | Posted by Ray at 2019

He's offering to collude with China to cheat and win 2020. You know, like he said he DIDN'T collude with Russia in 2016?

So, you're just being weird.

#112 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 07:42 PM | Reply

I'm curious. What does RAY the anarchist support Trump?

#113 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 07:43 PM | Reply

#110 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

Martians.

#114 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 07:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

RAY -

Why do the Clintons and Bidens' crimes, IYO, take priority over Trump's? Neither Clinton nor Biden are POTUS.

Shouldn't the potential criminality of a sitting president take priority over former VPs or Secretary of States?

#115 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 07:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What does RAY the anarchist support Trump?
#113 | POSTED BY ZED

All I did was tell the truth as I saw it. You twisted that around to supporting Trump.

Unlike you, Zed, I don't believe in making up crazy nonsense about people I don't like.

#116 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 07:47 PM | Reply

Why do the Clintons and Bidens' crimes, IYO, take priority over Trump's? Neither Clinton nor Biden are POTUS.

#115 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 07

Why does RAY the anarchist support Trump?

#117 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 07:47 PM | Reply

All I did was tell the truth as I saw it. You twisted that around to supporting Trump.

#116 | Posted by Ray

The truth as I see it.

#118 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 07:48 PM | Reply

I don't believe in making up crazy nonsense about people I don't like.

#116 | Posted by Ray

You and some other people here are so damned weird. This stuff is on videotape.

#119 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 07:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Donald Trump is asking China, if it is listening, to intervene on his behalf in 2020.

RAY sees something different?

#120 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 07:50 PM | Reply

Donald asked Russia, if it was listening, to intervene on his behalf in 2016.

#121 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 07:52 PM | Reply

Why do the Clintons and Bidens' crimes, IYO, take priority over Trump's? Neither Clinton nor Biden are POTUS

Ever hear of tit-for-tat? What the Democrats do to Trump, he does back. Fair is fair.

Shouldn't the potential criminality of a sitting president take priority over former VPs or Secretary of States?
#115 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH1

I haven't seen credible evidence of Trump's wrongdoing. All I see is allegations and innuendo, and lying by omission and commission.

#122 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 07:52 PM | Reply

Donald told the Ukrainian president to listen, he wanted some intervention in the 2020 election.

#123 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 07:53 PM | Reply

I haven't seen credible evidence of Trump's wrongdoing.

#122 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 07:52

You saw the tape? What's RAY's explanation for what Trump was saying there?

#124 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 07:54 PM | Reply

Donald asked the Australians to listen, he wanted them to intervene on the 2020 election.

#125 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 07:55 PM | Reply

Is a pattern emerging for you here, RAY? Pattern recognition is vital for personal survival.

#126 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 07:56 PM | Reply

RAY, if you're listening, people don't have to "make up" reasons to dislike Trump. Every day he ----- on our doorstep anew. YOU'VE taken a side. Fess up.

#127 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 08:00 PM | Reply

I'm doing well, Zed, by keeping a distance while watching this government self-destruct from internecine warfare.
It might as well be a movie full of drama and entertainment.
Carry on.

#128 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 08:01 PM | Reply

Carry on.

#128 | Posted by Ray at

Thanks. Then I'll go on to say that as a man with no particular love for this country it was expected you'd go Trump.

#129 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-03 08:03 PM | Reply

Every day he ----- on our doorstep anew. YOU'VE taken a side. Fess up.

It's the nature of politics to attract sociopaths.
The system is fatally corrupt.
That's why I lost all confidence in politics.

#130 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 08:04 PM | Reply

The CIA and the Democrats are in an alliance.

#108 | Posted by Ray

If you mean to protect america from putin, you're actually right for once in your life.

Too bad trump's not in that alliance.

#131 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-03 08:05 PM | Reply

"Fair is fair."

Even if it's illegal? So, for clarity, are you suggesting Biden and Trump should both be held accountable for criminal behavior?

I haven't seen credible evidence of Trump's wrongdoing. All I see is allegations and innuendo, and lying by omission and commission.
#122 | POSTED BY RAY

Did you not read the transcript summary? If you have, in what way was Trump's request not going to lead to direct personal and political benefit to Trump whereby allowing the purchase of javenille missiles by Ukraine from the U.S. was implicitly threatened?

#132 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 08:05 PM | Reply

I haven't seen credible evidence of Trump's wrongdoing.
#122 | Posted by Ray

Man with hands over eyes says he can't see any evidence. News at l1.

What prevented you from reading the mueller report? Just wanted to remain ignorant so you could keep saying you havent seen any convincing evidence?

#133 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-03 08:07 PM | Reply

The CIA and the Democrats are in an alliance.

Then Trump doesn't have a chance. Bluster is all he has. No wonder he's apoplectic. He's cornered.

#134 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-10-03 08:12 PM | Reply

Did you not read the transcript summary? If you have, in what way was Trump's request not going to lead to direct personal and political benefit to Trump whereby allowing the purchase of javenille missiles by Ukraine from the U.S. was implicitly threatened?

Yes I did. Trump asked the Ukrainian president to look into the Biden matter, stating the Biden was bragging how he stopped the investigation of his son. There was no mention of missiles or aid in the conversation. The US and Ukraine have an agreement of mutual cooperation on criminal matters.

You must have read the Schiff version.

#135 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 08:15 PM | Reply

What prevented you from reading the mueller report? Just wanted to remain ignorant so you could keep saying you havent seen any convincing evidence?
#133 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I suppose you believe Mueller lied about his own report?

#136 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 08:18 PM | Reply

Did you not read the transcript summary? If you have, in what way was Trump's request not going to lead to direct personal and political benefit to Trump whereby allowing the purchase of javenille missiles by Ukraine from the U.S. was implicitly threatened?

It doesn't matter if a quid pro quo is proven or not (of course there was one).

Trump asking for a "favor" violated the law. Period. In black and white.

The law has been posted numerous times over the last week on myriad threads. If Ray doesn't know it, he can google and look it up. There is no ambiguity in its wording.

And everything Trump said today is further violation of federal law. Democrats aren't doing or alleging anything, they're reading law and matching it to Trump's own words spoken out loud, in public.

#137 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-03 08:20 PM | Reply

#134 | POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT
Then Trump doesn't have a chance.

So far, Trump hasn't gotten the JFK, Nixon, or Reagan treatment.

#138 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 08:21 PM | Reply

#138

Day ain't over yet.

#139 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-10-03 08:22 PM | Reply

"Federal law states it is illegal to "knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation." Trump's request to President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was not for campaign cash, but what's referred to as an "in kind" contribution that would arguably be of more value " damaging information that could be weaponized against Biden, a potential 2020 rival."
www.apnews.com

I still believe Trump was acting legitimately. That interpretation looks to me like an attempt to deflect attention away from Biden's crimes.

Even if the full House votes for impeachment, it's not going to get past the Republican Senate. The best the Dems can do is discredit Trump, which I believe will backfire in 2020.

We'll just have to wait and see how this turns out.

#140 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 08:35 PM | Reply

The key word there is knowingly.

#141 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-10-03 08:40 PM | Reply

There was no mention of missiles... in the conversation.
#135 | POSTED BY RAY

False!

President Zelenskyy: I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.

Furthermore, any established agreement between the US and Ukraine to
Please try again. Besides, the law protects against both explicit (as you acknowledge, was not present) and IMPLICIT requests for support that is tantamount to political favors.

The US and Ukraine have an agreement of mutual cooperation on criminal matters.
You must have read the Schiff version.
#135 | POSTED BY RAY

The Schiff version, whatever that means, acknowledges that Trump made an implicit request that should be investigated. Currently, Trump's behavior as a whole, and specifically focusing on his political front runner of an opponent Biden, with multiple foreign nations exhibits an intent of using the office of the president to leverage political gain. That's illegal. Still waiting for you to explain how it's not.

Further, any established cooperative agreement between the US and Ukraine to combat corruption in the Ukraine should have been implemented and maintained by anybody but Trump to protect against potential perceptions of political favoritism during campaign season. That, clearly, was not adhered to. Hence, this is Trump stepping in his own ----. A mistake? Obviously. But the context of this as being just a mistake does not mitigate the criminality in any way, especially when the intent is so clear as it has now become (i.e., why would Biden be the central focus of corruption investigation voiced by Trump to multiple foreign leaders? And why wouldn't Trump rely on his own State Department, FBI, or other entities within his administration to take on such politically sensitive matters like any other president in history normally would?).

#142 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 08:55 PM | Reply

I suppose you believe Mueller lied about his own report?

#136 | Posted by Ray

Oh so you didn't read it, you just watched him on tv and thought that was all you needed to know.
So what prevented you from hearing his testimony? Earplugs?

#143 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-03 09:09 PM | Reply

We'll just have to wait and see how this turns out.
#140 | POSTED BY RAY

So are you ending your discussion in this discussion now because you simply "believe" (i.e., have faith without evidence) that Trump acted legitimately?

That's what the above declaration seems implying.

#144 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 09:13 PM | Reply

*your discussion = your participation...

#145 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 09:14 PM | Reply

So are you ending your discussion in this discussion now because you simply "believe" (i.e., have faith without evidence) that Trump acted legitimately?

I saw the evidence. I gave my opinion.
It's pointless to get into an I'm-right-you're-wrong argument. That's going nowhere.

#146 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 09:22 PM | Reply

That's going nowhere.
#146 | POSTED BY RAY

Fair enough. I won't anticipate your participation in the discussion any longer since you've resorted to wait and see approach.

Thanks for the input, anyways.

#147 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 09:25 PM | Reply

"I saw the evidence. I gave my opinion."

Your recent opinions have included ignoring vaccines, foregoing cancer treatments for sunshine and orange juice, and investing in gold over a time where gold lost money, and index funds gained over 140%.

Buyer (or in this case, Reader)...Beware.

#148 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-03 09:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Buyer (or in this case, Reader)...Beware.

I couldn't say it better.

#149 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-03 09:54 PM | Reply

Your recent opinions have included ignoring vaccines, foregoing cancer treatments for sunshine and orange juice, and investing in gold over a time where gold lost money, and index funds gained over 140%.

Buyer (or in this case, Reader)...Beware.

#148 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

What does any of that have to do with Ray's opinion on this?

Oh, that's right, it's completely unrelated.

Either refute what Ray has to say, on topic, or STFU DNCDan.

#150 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-03 10:35 PM | Reply

Your President just committed a FELONY on national TV. - #46 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-03 02:27 PM

What felony do you think occurred? I know you can't believe that it's a campaign finance infraction for 2 different reasons:
1. Nothing is being contributed to Trump's campaign by Ukraine or China investigating Biden.
2. The media has been reporting non-stop that there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden, so what is the dollar value of China &/or Ukraine investigating and finding no evidence of Biden's wrongdoing?

#151 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 10:41 PM | Reply

2. The media has been reporting non-stop that there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden, so what is the dollar value of China &/or Ukraine investigating and finding no evidence of Biden's wrongdoing?
#151 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

It is significant. The fact your asking speaks volumes.

#152 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 10:42 PM | Reply

That is a crime under U.S. law. Will you or will you not acknowledge the undeniable? - #48 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-03 02:32 PM
I believe that he made the request as an attempt to uncover corruption of the past administration. My evidence for that is his repeated promises to drain the swamp during his campaign. You're welcome to post any evidence you have that Trump made his request as an attempt to do anything for his campaign.

#153 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 10:44 PM | Reply

"refute what Ray has to say,"

Ray did what you did: he read where Trump said "'I would like you to do us a favor though", right after Zelensky referenced defense weapons, and neither of you thought it was a quid pro quo...

...English be damned.

Who needs to refute, when the words do it all for me?

#154 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-03 10:45 PM | Reply

I believe that he made the request as an attempt to uncover corruption of the past administration. My evidence for that is his repeated promises to drain the swamp during his campaign. You're welcome to post any evidence you have that Trump made his request as an attempt to do anything for his campaign.
#153 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

If Biden was NOT Trump's current political opponent, such a request would be legitimate.

That's not the case, however. Therefore, it is illegitimate.

There in lies the rub. Maybe you'll finally heed it.

#155 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 10:46 PM | Reply

"I believe that he made the request as an attempt to uncover corruption of the past administration."

Note to self: buy turd-polish futures.

#156 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-03 10:47 PM | Reply

The Clinton Foundation was selling favors on the promise Hillary would be the next president.
They rigged the primary vote so Sanders would not get a majority.
According to Trump: "Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn't want to follow!"
It's been buried by the media. Now Trump has reason and resources to bring it to surface.
ray

I haven't seen credible evidence of Trump's wrongdoing. All I see is allegations and innuendo, and lying by omission and commission.
#122 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2019-10-03 07:52 PM | REPLY | FLAG:
ray

Unlike you, Zed, I don't believe in making up crazy nonsense about people I don't like.
#116 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2019-10-03 07:47 PM | FLAG:
ray

#157 | Posted by cjk85 at 2019-10-03 10:47 PM | Reply

If Biden was NOT Trump's current political opponent, such a request would be legitimate.

Now do all of the Trump/Russia investigations and Clinton/Obama!

#158 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-03 10:48 PM | Reply

How about you show us where, in the law, the president has the authority to withhold military aid in exchange for a political favor? - #75 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-03 03:39 PM
Since of foreign government opening an investigation does not meet either "(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party" then I'm afraid the onus is on you to show where in the law the president committed any wrongdoing.

#159 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 10:48 PM | Reply

#154 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Are you sitting in an ice-bath moving goalposts that heavy?

#160 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-03 10:50 PM | Reply

"What does any of that have to do with Ray's opinion on this?"

Ray has a long history of wearing a "THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END" sandwich board. He was touting gold eight years ago, and now he's peddling vitamins and sunshine over vaccines and cancer treatments. Ray's "opinion" should be held suspect, as a default.

#161 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-03 10:51 PM | Reply

If Biden was NOT Trump's current political opponent, such a request would be legitimate. That's not the case, however. Therefore, it is illegitimate. There in lies the rub. Maybe you'll finally heed it.
#155 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 10:46 PM

Biden is no more of a political opponent for Trump than I am. Both of us have exactly the same eligibility in any future election. Both of us have had as many votes cast for us.
Biden is not special because a minority of a group who choose to be a part of it have claimed that in the future they might choose to back him in the election.

#162 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 10:54 PM | Reply

Avigdore,

Have you ever been wrong about anything ever?

Have you ever made a mistake in your entire life?

If you have Danforth will use it to try and discredit everything you post that he disagrees with regardless of merit.

It's what he does and it's well-documented.

#163 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-03 10:54 PM | Reply

"Are you sitting in an ice-bath moving goalposts that heavy?"

What a riot. I didn't move the goalposts an inch.

How on earth can you read those English words, interspersed with Zelensky's mention of Javelins, and not conclude Quid Pro Quo?!?

I know...pretend it was Obama. You'd be having a farkin' aneurism.

#164 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-03 10:55 PM | Reply

"Have you ever made a mistake in your entire life?"

I'll bite; which mistake is it, Jeff?

#165 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-03 10:56 PM | Reply

Since of foreign government opening an investigation does not meet either "(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
#159 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Biden is the connection to a federal election. Putting him under investigation results in potential harm to his electability, equating to something of political value. The impetus of obtaining that value originated with Trump's request. Had Biden not been campaigning for POTUS, it would not be an issue. Because he is, it's not just an issue, but a legal issue.

Biden being Trump's CURRENT political opponent sets this apart from first part of your statement. Because in any other situation, you'd be correct. For this specific situation, you are absolutely wrong.

#166 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 10:56 PM | Reply

We have no idea what's in the other calls they secreted away, but Trump stood on the front drive at the WH this morning and told the Chinese and Ukranians he wants them to do something for him. A felony. On national TV. - #85 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-03 04:04 PM
What is your evidence that investigating possible wrongdoing by Joe Biden is in any way for Trump as opposed to be for identification and elimination of corruption, something that Trump campaigned for?

#167 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 10:57 PM | Reply

Biden is no more of a political opponent for Trump than I am. Both of us have exactly the same eligibility in any future election.
#162 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Yikes.

Your delusions of grandeur do not hamper Trump's newly formed issues.

Enjoy your night.

#168 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 10:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ray has a long history of wearing a "THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END" sandwich board.

Funny. The people who you plan to vote for promulgate that if we don't destroy capitalism and implement the Green New Deal the world will come to an end within a decade!

He was touting gold eight years ago, and now he's peddling vitamins and sunshine over vaccines and cancer treatments. Ray's "opinion" should be held suspect, as a default.

#161 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You are attempting to discredit him about everything because he's out there on vaccinations.

It's lazy. Rebut his claims, on topic or STFU.

#169 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-03 10:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#166 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 10:56 PM
What value is an investigation into Biden, when the media has stated so many times that the claims being investigated have been debunked? Show your math.

#170 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 10:58 PM | Reply

Now do all of the Trump/Russia investigations and Clinton/Obama!
#158 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Why is that my obligation?

#171 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 10:59 PM | Reply

"Biden is no more of a political opponent for Trump than I am."

LOL Give it up with that crap. Or to put it more politely: The difference between you and Joe is that you aren't beating Trump in poll after poll, including in swing states.

#172 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 10:59 PM | Reply

"does not meet either "(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value..."

Great...now value gets the Humpty Dumpty treatment.

Here's a clue: Oppo research on your political opponent is "A THING OF VALUE".

#173 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-03 10:59 PM | Reply

#166 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 10:56 PM
Also, please show the link that makes the investigation a donation to the campaign...as opposed to just an investigation.

#174 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 10:59 PM | Reply

Show your math.
#170 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

No math needed.

To your issue with the media, there are PLENTY who ignore the media, or at least the media that you're alluding to, making the act of placing Biden under an investigation of corruption that potentially could bleed out beyond November 2020 as extremely valuable, especially to media outlets supporting Trump's reelection.

Simple.

#175 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:01 PM | Reply

opposed to just an investigation.
#174 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

No citation necessary.

(Damn, that does feel good.)

#176 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:03 PM | Reply

Oppo research on your political opponent is "A THING OF VALUE". - #173 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-03 10:59 PM

Oppo research is something that is given to or purchased by a campaign for the campaign's use in discrediting an opponent. It is not a criminal investigation. Have you any evidence that Trump requested that anything be given to the campaign?

#177 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:03 PM | Reply

Have you any evidence that Trump requested that anything be given to the campaign?
#177 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

I've already established that.

#178 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:04 PM | Reply

Here's a clue: Oppo research on your political opponent is "A THING OF VALUE".

#173 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Ok. Steele-Russian sources-Dossier. Is that 'A THING OF VALUE' too?

What you are suggesting is that Trump was the first campaign in history to engage in opposition research.

Dear lord.

Please clarify because I know you aren't that stupid or ignorant.

#179 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-03 11:04 PM | Reply

To your issue with the media, there are PLENTY who ignore the media, or at least the media that you're alluding to, making the act of placing Biden under an investigation of corruption that potentially could bleed out beyond November 2020 as extremely valuable, especially to media outlets supporting Trump's reelection.

#175 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:01 PM
I think that it's worthless. You're claiming that Trump has broken the law based on the value of the 'thing'. Show your math.

No idea what you're trying to say with #176

#180 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:05 PM | Reply

I've already established that. - #178 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:04 PM
Care to point out where?

#181 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:05 PM | Reply

I think that it's worthless.
#180 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Again, no math needed.

Why do you deem Trump's front running political opponent (at the time of incident) being placed under criminal investigation as worthless to Trump's potential of being reelected?

#182 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:07 PM | Reply

Why do you deem Trump's front running political opponent (at the time of incident) being placed under criminal investigation as worthless to Trump's potential of being reelected?

#182 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:07 PM
I don't believe that any investigation, which presumably would provide information to everyone not just Trump's campaign, is a donation to a campaign.
I also believe that an investigation proving that Biden acted appropriately would be of no value to Trump's campaign.

#183 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:09 PM | Reply

Now do all of the Trump/Russia investigations and Clinton/Obama!
#158 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Why is that my obligation?

#171 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

I'm probing for consistency. You've respectfully done the same with me tonight.

I'm not looking to bog you down, BTW. Looking for some basic clarification and I will take you at your word.

#184 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-03 11:09 PM | Reply

What you are suggesting is that Trump was the first campaign in history to engage in opposition research.
#179 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Nope, just the first to get busted doing so blatantly and with perceived impunity.

Besides, as you've asserted with the Mueller report, if anything, it'll be the attempted cover-up that will ultimately justify this impeachment effort.

#185 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:10 PM | Reply

"What you are suggesting is that Trump was the first campaign in history to engage in opposition research."

The first one to demand it in exchange for military aid, and that as they say, makes all the difference. You can pretend there was no quid pro quo, but that's what you'll be doing: pretending.

#186 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:10 PM | Reply

Looking for some basic clarification and I will take you at your word.
#184 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Nah, no need. I've established my consistency against Obama and the Clintons plenty. So no pressure of being bogged down. The sitting president probably committed a crime. That's my concern, not B. Hussein nor Hillary. Once this is done with, take ANOTHER look at Hillary. Hammer Joe and Hunter! I'm all for it! Trump is POTUS and seeking re-election. That is the priority in my book.

#187 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:13 PM | Reply

I also believe that an investigation proving that Biden acted appropriately would be of no value to Trump's campaign.
#183 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

You've already established that. I'm asking you to clarify why.

#188 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:14 PM | Reply

The sitting president probably committed a crime. #187 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:13 PM
By requesting an investigation that isn't a campaign donation to provide information that has no value...you don't say?

#189 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:15 PM | Reply

I believe that the media is correct and there is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Biden. If Trump is attempting to discredit Biden, then a finding that there isn't evidence of wrongdoing can not possibly discredit Biden. Hence it has no value.

#190 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:16 PM | Reply

You've already established that. I'm asking you to clarify why. - #188 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:14 PM
So clarify for me what the investigation is going to provide that is of value and how it is going to be donated to Trump's campaign as opposed to being revealed to the world?

#191 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:18 PM | Reply

"I also believe that an investigation proving that Biden acted appropriately would be of no value to Trump's campaign."

Then you are probably too nave to continue participating in this discussion. Trump could use the investigation into Biden, even if it didn't come to any conclusion, in much the same way he used the Obama birth certificate "investigation". According to Trump, you wouldn't believe what they were discovering:

14 of Trump's most outrageous 'birther' claims -- half from after 2011

4. "I have people that have been studying [Obama's birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they're finding ... I would like to have him show his birth certificate, and can I be honest with you, I hope he can. Because if he can't, if he can't, if he wasn't born in this country, which is a real possibility ... then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics."

www.cnn.com

"They are investigating Biden in Ukraine, and you wouldn't believe what they are finding." You're right, Donnie, I wouldn't believe it.

#192 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:18 PM | Reply

I also believe that an investigation proving that Biden acted appropriately would be of no value to Trump's campaign.

Just like the one on Hillary that lead to no charges didn't have any value to Trump? Did it stop him from continuing to call for her imprisonment and fire up his base? No value, there, huh?

Stop playing with this fool. He's not worth the headbanging. Anyone who wrote what he just did is not reachable with logic and sense.

#193 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-03 11:19 PM | Reply

So your claim is that the investigation has value because Trump can lie about it? Evidence would then still show that Trump would be a liar, so there's no value there still.

#194 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:20 PM | Reply

Jeff,

What part of 5 CFR 2635.702 - 'Use of public office for private gain' is not clearly applicable to Trump's phone call with Ukrainian president?

#195 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:21 PM | Reply

Beach,

I appreciate your patience. Give me a bit to read the statute and square it with what I've read about it as it applies to all of this Trump-crap...

#196 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-03 11:27 PM | Reply

Insert Biden for Clinton and check out the other examples to get a flavor of what would be coming:

Trump Warned of Endless Clinton Investigations.

November 2 in Orlando, FL
"Hillary is likely to be under investigation for many years, probably concluding in a criminal trial."

November 5 in Denver, CO
"Her current scandals and controversies will continue throughout her presidency and we will make it honestly, look, it's gonna be virtually impossible for her to govern. Now, the Republicans have talked very tough and the Democrats. It's gonna be just another mess for another four years, folks. A mess. We've got to get back to work, right? I mean, we have to get back to work."

www.nbcnews.com

#197 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:27 PM | Reply

So clarify for me what the investigation is going to provide that is of value and how it is going to be donated to Trump's campaign as opposed to being revealed to the world?
#191 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

So you don't have an answer. Okay fine.

As Trump stated today, the issues the Bidens have in China are almost as bad as the issues they have in Ukraine. Investigations taking place in Ukraine, let alone both countries simultaneously, will (and already have been) damaging to Biden's electability regardless of the investigation's outcome, despite your beliefs about the matter. Other Trump supporters and those undecided (who do not find the MSM credible) who also believe the Bidens are questionably or potentially corrupt will use said investigations as enough evidence to lean towards Trump over Biden. Hence, political value favoring Trump.

'Warning sign' for Biden on Ukraine controversy, as poll shows plurality of voters believes Trump allegations
www.foxnews.com

#198 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:30 PM | Reply

Ignored #194? Trump can lie about an investigation just as well as about no investigation. Anyone fooled by his lies in one instance are still going to be fooled by the second. That STILL provides no value to Trump from the investigation. And still nobody can show how this is a donation to the campaign instead of release to the world. Do you all expect China and Ukraine to only tell the Trump campaign about what was found?

#199 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:32 PM | Reply

Evidence would then still show that Trump would be a liar, so there's no value there still.
#194 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

In a vacuum, you might be right. This is a very different environment. And why are you assuming said investigations would be wrapped up before November 2020?

The simple potential that the investigations would last past the election adds even more value because it provides Trump even more cover.

#200 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:32 PM | Reply

#191 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE
So you don't have an answer. Okay fine.
#198 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:30 PM

I answered to in 190 and posed my own question in 191.
Your response doesn't answer at all how this is being 'donated' to the Trump campaign as opposed to being released to the world.

#201 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:34 PM | Reply

Just posted this in another thread: People need to wise up. When Trump says, Could you do us a favor and investigate X, he doesn't mean Can you please dig up some dirt on X. He means Can you please manufacture it.

#202 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:36 PM | Reply

The simple potential that the investigations would last past the election adds even more value because it provides Trump even more cover.

#200 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:32 PM
Simply stated, the fact that something detracts from Biden, does not make it a donation to the Trump campaign. Hell, let's have a mental exercise: If Vietnam indicts Biden for something...what it is isn't relevant...have they made an illegal campaign donation to Trump?
The onus is still on the person making the claim of criminality to make that link. Even if we assume that the investigation is something of value, you still have not stated how it is donated TO the campaign, as opposed to being released to the world.

#203 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:39 PM | Reply

Ignored #194? Trump can lie about an investigation just as well as about no investigation. Anyone fooled by his lies in one instance are still going to be fooled by the second. That STILL provides no value to Trump from the investigation. And still nobody can show how this is a donation to the campaign instead of release to the world. Do you all expect China and Ukraine to only tell the Trump campaign about what was found?
#199 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Do you not realize 191 comes before 194?

"That STILL provides no value to Trump from the investigation."

In what way does it not? I've explained how it does.

"And still nobody can show how this is a donation to the campaign instead of release to the world."

Biden's status as political opponent for 2020 POTUS election would have established the context of value being received by Trump campaign as a de facto donation. Evidence pointing to this as being the true narrative lying within Trump naming Biden, and not B. Hussein's administration as a whole, in the phone call. Seasoned politician would have known how to get away with this attempt, Trump is naive...named Biden specifically even though Biden was following orders from Obama and now places himself in the cross hairs of impeachment because of that naivete. Other presidential administrations have gotten away with this type of behavior, as has been established here on the DR. Trump failed miserably and publicly admitted to a crime.

#204 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:39 PM | Reply

"The onus is still on the person making the claim of criminality to make that link."

In a court of law, but not in the court of public opinion. But you know that.

#205 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:43 PM | Reply

Do you not realize 191 comes before 194?

"That STILL provides no value to Trump from the investigation."
#204 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:39 PM

194 was posted to Gal_Tuesday. They were the one who originally claimed that the thing had value because Trump could lie about it, which seems to ignore the reality that a) being able to disprove Trumps lies with facts eliminates any possible value that the thing has and b) Trump could lie about anything or nothing just as easily making the value of the thing still worthless.

#206 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:43 PM | Reply

"b) Trump could lie about anything or nothing just as easily making the value of the thing still worthless."

True, but it will be a more convincing lie if he can state truthfully that Ukraine is doing an investigation into Biden. You wouldn't believe what they are finding!

#207 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:46 PM | Reply

Simply stated, the fact that something detracts from Biden, does not make it a donation to the Trump campaign.
#203 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Yes it does if the result was spurned by a request (just like a request for monetary donations) specifically by Trump or the Trump campaign.

If Vietnam indicts Biden for something...what it is isn't relevant...have they made an illegal campaign donation to Trump?
#203 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

If the indictment originated via a request by Trump or his campaign to investigate Biden, especially when Trump's own government has zero justification to support such a request, absolutely that's illegal.

Investigation = negative coverage of Biden = something of value for Trump's reelection potential

Should that value have been derived by actions originating with Trump specifically against Biden = illegal

This is true regardless of country.

#208 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:46 PM | Reply

#206 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Identifying who you are addressing would be helpful.

#209 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:47 PM | Reply

In a court of law, but not in the court of public opinion. But you know that.

#205 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:43 PM
No, in any discussion the person making a claim has the burden of proof. In this case the claim is of criminality, the burden of proof still lies in showing the criminal activity.
If you want to preface your statements with 'My baseless opinion is' then I won't argue with it. To make statements of factuality like 'The president is a criminal' either need to be backed up, or pointed out that the maker is speaking from ignorance.

#210 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:48 PM | Reply

a) being able to disprove Trumps lies with facts eliminates any possible value that the thing has

Two assumptions you're making here:

1) Negative coverage wouldn't take a toll on Biden's momentum leading up to primaries, as it already has ('Warning sign' for Biden on Ukraine controversy, as poll shows plurality of voters believes Trump allegations
www.foxnews.com)

2) said investigations would be wrapped up before the primaries, meer months away

How would that negative coverage not impact Biden's electability? Again, polls show it already has, establishing just the simple idea that Trump THINKS Biden should be investigated as something of value.

#211 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:52 PM | Reply

"No, in any discussion the person making a claim has the burden of proof. In this case the claim is of criminality, the burden of proof still lies in showing the criminal activity."

Again, you are using a legal term: "the burden of proof". The court of public opinion, alas, does not rely on "the burden of proof." Rumors, lies and innuendo will do quite nicely, thank you.

#212 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:53 PM | Reply

If the indictment originated via a request by Trump or his campaign to investigate Biden, especially when Trump's own government has zero justification to support such a request, absolutely that's illegal.
#208 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:46 PM

No, we're not talking about a solicited request. We're talking about the rest of that same statue. The person or entity making the donation. Is it an illegal campaign contribution for Vietnam to indict Biden? Is it an illegal campaign contribution if Scotland opens an investigation into Warren?

See, in order for you to continue to claim that the solicited version is an illegal solicitation of a campaign contribution, then the non-solicited version also has to be an illegal campaign contribution.
Are you sticking behind the idea that any country is currently in violation of felony campaign finance laws if they investigate wrongdoing of...anyone in the running for Democratic nomination? How about Green party candidates? Libertarian?...Dark Horse unaffiliated and as yet not announced candidates?

#213 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:53 PM | Reply

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Winston S. Churchill

#214 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:54 PM | Reply

Again, you are using a legal term: "the burden of proof". #212 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-03 11:53 PM
Again, you are mistaken
Burden of proof (philosophy)
en.wikipedia.org(philosophy)

#215 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:55 PM | Reply

No, in any discussion the person making a claim has the burden of proof. In this case the claim is of criminality, the burden of proof still lies in showing the criminal activity.
#210 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

If only every voter held such stringent philosophies. And your latter point has ready been established: Trump requested something of value from a foreign country against his current political opponent.

#216 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:55 PM | Reply

Did my correcting you get its pants on in time?

#217 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:55 PM | Reply

And your latter point has ready been established: Trump requested something of value from a foreign country against his current political opponent. - #216 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-03 11:55 PM
And we're still in disagreement about the value of the request and where the thing of value resides upon delivery.
Please don't dodge 213 ( I realize that these postings are probably nearly simultaneously)

#218 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-03 11:58 PM | Reply

"What you are suggesting is that Trump was the first campaign in history to engage in opposition research. "

No I'm not, you blithering idiot. I'm saying providing oppo research on someone's political opponent is A THING OF VALUE.

If you want to barf whataboutism, go right ahead. Just tell us first if oppo research is "a thing of value" or not. Easy question, really.

#219 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:02 AM | Reply

"we're still in disagreement about the value..."

Humpty Dumpty at his most embarrassing.

#220 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:03 AM | Reply

Is it an illegal campaign contribution for Vietnam to indict Biden? Is it an illegal campaign contribution if Scotland opens an investigation into Warren?
#213 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

No.

See, in order for you to continue to claim that the solicited version is an illegal solicitation of a campaign contribution, then the non-solicited version also has to be an illegal campaign contribution.
#213 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Why? It's the request that is illegal:

(a)Inducement or coercion of benefits. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.

#221 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-04 12:03 AM | Reply

Well, ladies and gentlemen and anyone else who may have been paying attention, the game is over (it was exciting...paying too much attention to it is why I didn't adequately target some of the responses, my apologies), and work on the ship still starts in 6 hours. I've got to get to bed. I sincerely hope to have a response from rstybeach11 on #213 to discuss in the morning. And Gal, I hope you took some time to read the Burden of Proof entry, especially the part about Application in our public discourse.

#222 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-04 12:04 AM | Reply

"Burden of proof is an important concept in the public arena of ideas. Once participants in discourse establish common assumptions, the mechanism of burden of proof helps to ensure that all parties contribute productively, using relevant arguments."

The problem with a philosophical burden of prof is evident: lies are not relevant arguments.

"Did my correcting you get its pants on in time?"

No. Sorry.

#223 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-04 12:06 AM | Reply

#222 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Missed you by one minute.

#224 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-04 12:07 AM | Reply

"It's lazy. Rebut his claims"

Reread the "transcript" as many times as it takes.

Once you're done, be sure to get all the sand out of your ears.

Your willful ignorance, like Ray's, is duly noted.

#225 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:08 AM | Reply

#221 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-04 12:03 AM
From #75 above. You can check there for the citation, but here's the part relevant to my question that you seem to not get.
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

If your belief is that a request for an investigation is a solicitation of an illegal campaign contribution, then an UNSOLICITED one must STILL be an illegal campaign contribution.

#224: No, you sucked me in for one LAST reply. Goodnight.

#226 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-04 12:08 AM | Reply

"And Gal, I hope you took some time to read the Burden of Proof entry, especially the part about Application in our public discourse."

I looked at it quickly and already found the fatal flaw in your desire to apply it in this context to Trump, but if you need to think, you've won this argument, go for it.

#227 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-04 12:09 AM | Reply

The problem with a philosophical burden of prof is evident: lies are not relevant arguments.

"Did my correcting you get its pants on in time?"

No. Sorry.

#223 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-04 12:06 AM
Who in this conversation are you claiming has lied? Or are you just throwing out a red herring to try to avoid admitting your mistake? And goodnight to you.

#228 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-04 12:10 AM | Reply

" or other thing of value..."

You're a moron if you believe dirt on a political opponent isn't a thing of value.

But keep hanging your hat on that and that alone.

#229 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:10 AM | Reply

I looked at it quickly and already found the fatal flaw in your desire to apply it in this context to Trump - #227 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-04 12:09 AM

We're not discussing this in context of Trump. We're discussing it in context of us Drudge Retorters participating in discourse in a public arena of ideas. In this public arena of idea, the burden of proof remains on the person making a claim to back it up. Or the claim can be pointed out is being unfounded.

#230 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-04 12:12 AM | Reply

'Warning sign' for Biden on Ukraine controversy, as poll shows plurality of voters believes Trump allegations
www.foxnews.com

=

Something of value.

#231 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-04 12:12 AM | Reply

"Who in this conversation are you claiming has lied? Or are you just throwing out a red herring to try to avoid admitting your mistake? And goodnight to you."

The person who would use an investigation into Biden to lie about him is Trump. I admit I thought you were referring to burden of proof in a legal sense, but my analysis of why a philosophical burden of proof is irrelevant to the point you are trying to make is not a red herring. Good night to you as well.

#232 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-04 12:16 AM | Reply

"We're not discussing this in context of Trump."

We weren't? Well, then perhaps we were speaking at cross purposes.

#233 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-04 12:18 AM | Reply

If your belief is that a request for an investigation is a solicitation of an illegal campaign contribution, then an UNSOLICITED one must STILL be an illegal campaign contribution.
#224: No, you sucked me in for one LAST reply. Goodnight.
#226 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

If that's the case, I acquiesce to your presumption, yet it's always up to a prosecutor's discretion as to whether such behavior would warrant criminal charges or justify a request for the implementation of sanctions (see Russia sanctions stemming from criminal referral tied to election interference).

With that said, your assertion now establishes simple investigation (even without evidence of guilt) as something of value. Even more so, current polling solidifies this point:

'Warning sign' for Biden on Ukraine controversy, as poll shows plurality of voters believes Trump allegations
www.foxnews.com

#234 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-04 12:18 AM | Reply

This is Danforth, summed up:

Clinton solicits (and receives) all sorts of foreign help with "oppo-research" and a political document is produced that is utilized in a Counter-Intelligence investigation and it's all good. But heaven forbid Trump suggests an investigation into a situation where Biden bragged about quid-pro-quo.

I think Trump's comments are wrong and he has certainly created a situation whereby pressure can be tenuously implied. Yet, when quid pro quo is bragged about Donkey Suit Dan (and a couple of others) vociferously defend actions far worse than what they argue should result in criminal charges.

It's pathetic and patently hyper-partisan.

#235 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 12:20 AM | Reply

"Clinton solicits (and receives) all sorts of foreign help with "oppo-research" and a political document is produced that is utilized in a Counter-Intelligence investigation and it's all good."

I never said that. HRC should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Prosecute her, if your coveted Republican idiots have ANYTHING on her after decades of trying.

Meanwhile, you're up to your neck in whataboutism; that's all you've got left.

Have you actually READ the text of the conversation, where right after Zelensky mentions Javelins, Trump asks for a favor?!?

Again...pretend it's Obama.

#236 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:25 AM | Reply

" vociferously defend actions"

The only vociferous defense was words you desperately put in my mouth.

"far worse'"

You always barf that lie whenever you're cornered: that someone else did "far worse", whether they directly asked a foreign power for election help or not. What a hyperpartisan turn polisher you turned out to be; stuck with nothing but whataboutism when faced with the actual text put out by the White House.

#237 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:29 AM | Reply

It's pathetic and patently hyper-partisan.
#235 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

All of which does NOT mitigate the potential criminality in Trump's solicitation of something of value against his political opponent from Ukraine, or any other country for that matter.

#238 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-04 12:30 AM | Reply

"where Biden bragged about quid-pro-quo. "

I'm sure you've got a credible link for Biden bragging.

#239 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:41 AM | Reply

I never said that

Yes, you did. You touted her as the most qualified candidate ever (your words) up until the point she lost the general. You relentlessly shilled her up until the point she lost, and well after that.

Meanwhile, you're up to your neck in whataboutism;

Turinng it back on you. Watching you get pissed when your selective standards are held to you is hilarious!

Have you actually READ the text of the conversation, where right after Zelensky mentions Javelins, Trump asks for a favor?!?

I read the text of the transcript, in its entirety, twice. I've read the whistle-blower complaint in its entirety once.

On top of that I've read countess articles and op-eds on all of this.

Again...pretend it's Obama.

#236 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I already have.

Here you go


....Also, this Hunter Biden thing? Not much there, and yes, he's a Democrat.

The Carter Page FISA warrants that the right are hyping up as illegally obtained. Unless the impending IG report says otherwise, I say there were properly obtained.

Investigation of the investigators (this Barr-lead investigation). Again, until I see otherwise my take is the investigations into Trump were properly predicated.

Those last 2 are in spite of a LOT of potential smoke hinting at possible criminality on the part of the Obama administration. It's been written about by the likes of Andrew McCarthy, Paul Sperry, Margot Cleveland, Kim Strassel, John Solomon, etc extensively. Yet, here I am waiting and waiting for concrete proof (that I don't believe is forthcoming) of malfeasance of the Obama administration.

With all of this stuff my approach has been very cautious.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-10-03 08:45 PM | REPLY

#240 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 12:43 AM | Reply

Clinton solicits (and receives) all sorts of foreign help with "oppo-research" and a political document is produced that is utilized in a Counter-Intelligence investigation and it's all good. But heaven forbid Trump suggests an investigation into a situation where Biden bragged about quid-pro-quo.

The quid pro quo Biden bragged about wasn't personal. IOW, he didn't gain anything personally from getting Shokin fired. The reverse is true: the company Hunter worked for was at greater risk of being investigated by another prosecutor. For Trump, OTOH, it was personal: he was seeking political advantage over Biden and support for his lies about Biden's so-called quid pro quo. And he put Ukraine at risk, which is advantageous to Russia, to do it. See the difference?

#241 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-04 12:44 AM | Reply

Danforth,

If you didn't have double-standards you'd have no standards at all.

#242 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 12:48 AM | Reply

"The Carter Page FISA warrants that the right are hyping up as illegally obtained."

Once again, the defense has been boiled down to:
You had no right to uncover my wrongs!

IOW, nothing to say about the lawbreaking, but LOTS to say about the process.

#243 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:49 AM | Reply

"If you didn't have double-standards you'd have no standards at all."

Quoting me is the height of flattery.

Tell us again how you're not a hyperpartisan, you just vote for Republicans you don't like.

#244 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:50 AM | Reply

The quid pro quo Biden bragged about wasn't personal. IOW, he didn't gain anything personally from getting Shokin fired

Except that the company his son was working for, sans any qualifications, was under criminal investigation.

#245 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 12:50 AM | Reply

"I'm sure you've got a credible link for Biden bragging."

He did brag about it, but not in a "Hey, I got my son's company off the hook" kind of way. And as has been pointed out numerous times, Biden wasn't freelancing. He was delivering the message Obama and members of the EU wanted delivered. David Cameron confirmed as much:

Former British leader defends Biden Ukraine scenario

www.politico.com

#246 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-04 12:51 AM | Reply

"The Carter Page FISA warrants that the right are hyping up as illegally obtained."

Once again, the defense has been boiled down to:
You had no right to uncover my wrongs!

IOW, nothing to say about the lawbreaking, but LOTS to say about the process.

#243 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Are you really going to be that disingenous?

Why did you edit out my clarifying caveat?

#247 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 12:53 AM | Reply

"Except that the company his son was working for, sans any qualifications, was under criminal investigation."

But not in Ukraine and the UK investigation into it had to be shutdown because Shokin wouldn't cooperate with British authorities. If Biden had wanted to protect the company Hunter worked for, he should have done nothing and kept his mouth shut.

#248 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-04 12:54 AM | Reply

Gal,

You don't need to convince me.

This story was a blip a few years ago. I followed it. I don't think Biden did anything overtly corrupt and given his decades of public service and lack of self-enrichment, I am willing to cut him some slack on this even if it has some corruption.

#249 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 12:55 AM | Reply

"Are you really going to be that disingenous?"

I have to wonder: are you agreeing with the IG this time, or are you NOT agreeing with the IG this time. You seem to blow back and forth, depending on what you wanted to hear in the first place.

Regardless: stop the turd polishing regarding process. Does it really matter if, say, Schiff knew Trump was offering Zelensky a quid pro quo before the whistleblower's complaint became public?!?

"I read the text of the transcript, in its entirety, twice."

And you, who tortures over every word in the constitution, can't seem to see a quid pro quo in the plain English in the transcript? You're purposely sticking your head in the sand.

#250 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:57 AM | Reply

" the company his son was working for, sans any qualifications..."

This is the point where Jeff, in a manner completely lacking self-awareness, is going to pretend someone's offspring should be qualified.

Irony meters everywhere are in danger.

#251 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 01:00 AM | Reply

I have to wonder: are you agreeing with the IG this time, or are you NOT agreeing with the IG this time. You seem to blow back and forth, depending on what you wanted to hear in the first place.

I don't think a month in Antarctica can reduce the swelling from hefting those giant goalposts.

You are gaslighting. I am not going to play along.

Either address what I actually said or ask for clarification.

I am not going to play snoofygames (tm) with you.

If you are interested in an honest discussion I'm game for the next half hour. If not, then pound sand. Your choice.

#252 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 01:02 AM | Reply

If you are interested in an honest discussion I'm game for the next half hour. If not, then pound sand. Your choice.
#252 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

What part(s) of 5 CFR 2635.702 - 'Use of public office for private gain' is not clearly applicable to Trump's phone call with Ukrainian president?

(a)Inducement or coercion of benefits. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.

#253 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-04 01:06 AM | Reply

"address what I actually said"

You said you read the transcript twice, and still didn't understand it. What more is there to discuss?

You want to pretend the lawbreaking didn't happen, and so you try to divert to process. I second Rusty's direct question to you.

#254 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 01:10 AM | Reply

And now for your moment of Zen:

J.M. Berger @intelwire

Trump's final, unbeatable impeachment defense: There can be no quid pro quo because the president always stiffs his contractors.
5:23 PM - 3 Oct 2019

#255 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-04 01:20 AM | Reply

#253 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Whoa!!

What do we have here, folks?

I see an honest broker who is asking a legitimate, open-ended question and it's a question that I made a promise to answer and allowed myself to get side-tracked by a hyper-partisan hack perpetually wearing a donkey-suit.

My apologies, Beach.

I was actually about to proclaim, bed ways is right-ways, but you deserve a thoughtful answer to your question...

When it comes to something like this, I look toward precedence as a guide....give me a few minutes. I am dealing with chicken stock and if I don't get it cold quickly it will get rancid...

#256 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 01:21 AM | Reply

I second Rusty's direct question to you.

#254 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

No you don't.

Rsty is asking an honest and open-ended question.

You are looking to selectively edit my response (which you've already done on multiple occasions tonight) so you can continue to bite my ankles.

#257 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 01:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Beach,

Take it with a grain of salt - I think this piece sums up a response to your question. I'm happy to discuss it further from here - I agree with this take and you'll need to read it first (it's far better articulated and credentialed than I can muster on my own) and then we can go from there.

#258 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 01:30 AM | Reply

Beach,
Take it with a grain of salt - I think this piece sums up a response to your question.
#258 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

What piece?

#259 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-04 01:48 AM | Reply

----!

Sorry, I forgot to provide the link...

www.nationalreview.com

Again - take it with a grain of salt but it does provide a starting point toward addressing your question.

#260 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 01:51 AM | Reply

Beach,

I look at these scenarios like this:

* Do we have an analogous situation in recent history?

* The answer almost always seems to be, "yes", so my question that follows is how was it handled - what was the reaction?

That's where I start. Virtually never do all of the variables perfectly align. Having said that typically we have a good amount of overlap and that's where I start.

I've become incredibly cautious over the past few years as I've seen an epidemic of horrible journalism - I wait and wait but I do it across the board and apply it to both parties.

Apparently my cautious approach bothers a girl from Idaho but it only falls in 1 direction

#261 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 02:04 AM | Reply

Just fulfilling the promise to drain the swamp. I hope foreign sources do assist the ongoing DOJ investigation into whether Biden's coked out son profited because his creepy daddy was VP. I'm just wondering what will turn public opinion faster on ol Joe - his mishandling of public trust or young girls.

#262 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2019-10-04 03:53 AM | Reply

With that said, your assertion now establishes simple investigation (even without evidence of guilt) as something of value. - #234 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-04 12:18 AM
I'm afraid you haven't read for comprehension. In the assertion you quoted, I still limited it to your belief...not reality. Unless you're talking about some other statement, in which case would you please quote my assertion that establishes for you that a simple investigation is something of value?

Also, your theory of what constitutes a campaign contribution, any activity which impacts a campaign, would make the President powerless in international affairs for their first term.
Can't work on a treaty, that work with a foreign entity would impact the campaign.
Can't engage in joint military exercises, that could impact the campaign.
Can't discuss withdrawal of troops from a foreign engagement, that would impact the campaign.

Here's the biggest indicator that my interpretation of this is correct: bipartisan history.
2 different administrations have been posed with the same calls for criminality of the same actions. 3 times calls have been made 'that's an illegal campaign contribution' and 3 times the answer has been 'no'.
The first was Obama's DoJ. When presented of clear evidence of what you would consider a solicitation for illegal campaign contribution, they declined any indictment. When Mueller reported on the same type of 'solicitation for illegal campaign contribution', he said 'no'. When the whistleblower complaint was forwarded to the DoJ for investigating possible campaign finance misconduct based on the same type of 'soliitation for illegal campaign contribution', the answer still remains 'no'.

3 times people have tried to push their idea of what this law means onto a bipartisan collection of DoJ personnel. 3 times the answer has been 'get out of here with that bullcrap'. I'm honestly not sure why you think the 4th time, with the same or similar evidence is going to be any different. Yet here we are.

#263 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-04 06:22 AM | Reply

This thread is a hoot.. most notable: Ray is a sovereign citizen who doesn't recognize authority or rule of law but takes up for Trump.

Sumpin' ain't quite rite.....

#264 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-10-04 08:29 AM | Reply

Ray is a sovereign citizen who doesn't recognize authority or rule of law but takes up for Trump.

#264 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-10-04 08:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

RAY likes Trump because he sees Trump as a destructive force, and because he really wants to spend the last days of his life gloating that he was right-everything did fall apart.

#265 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-04 08:45 AM | Reply

Trump has created new foreign policy here, granting China unknown power with no end date.

The implications are mind boggling.

#266 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-04 09:49 AM | Reply

then I'm afraid the onus is on you to show where in the law the president committed any wrongdoing.

#159 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Investigations are not free. Withholding funds, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars to extort an investigation involves, well, hundreds of millions of dollars. Please explain to me how hundreds of millions of dollars, and/or the costs associated with investigating a political rival are not a "thing of value."

Let's go a step further, and see if he asked for investigations of anyone else. If we find that, say, he did NOT single out his political opponent, there may be some wiggle room to suggest this was not a campaign contribution.

I'd like to get you on the record. Are you saying that what he did is not impeachable?

#267 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-04 12:31 PM | Reply

RAY likes Trump because he sees Trump as a destructive force, and because he really wants to spend the last days of his life gloating that he was right-everything did fall apart.
#265 | POSTED BY ZED

I was laughing at you people over your hysteria about the Russians helping Trump. And I'm sure I'll be laughing again as you people shoot yourselves in the second foot. There's a saying about blind hatred. You're infected with it.

Ray is a sovereign citizen who doesn't recognize authority or rule of law but takes up for Trump.
#264 | Posted by lfthndthrd

I'm not defending Trump. I'm defending sanity. You people have gotten completely bonkers.

#268 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-04 01:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bark bark

#269 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-04 02:10 PM | Reply

'm not defending Trump. I'm defending sanity. You people have gotten completely bonkers.

#268 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2019-10-04 01:16 PM | REPLY

Says the guy who does not recognize the authority of the US Government.

#270 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-04 03:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Ray is from that dark corner of the human soul where if you put a fancy dress on crazy, it becomes respectable in the eyes of others.

It's actually the same place Trump is from.
Trump simply has millions of dollars more than Ray, so he can afford better clothes.
But this is what the Deplorables like about Trump: They identify with him personally.

#271 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-04 03:24 PM | Reply

Are you saying that what he did is not impeachable?
#267 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-04 12:31 PM

Wearing the wrong color shoes is impeachable of the House determines it to be so, so certainly they could decide this is impeachable - impeachment being a political, not legal, process.

#272 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-04 03:33 PM | Reply

#272 Nice dodge.

#273 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-04 03:34 PM | Reply

Well, looks like I was wrong:

Volker's testimony:

d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net

#274 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-04 03:36 PM | Reply

Sorry, not Volker's testimony, his statement.

#275 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-10-04 03:48 PM | Reply

I was laughing at you people over your hysteria about the Russians helping Trump.

#268 | POSTED BY RAY

So it didn't happen? Russia didn't help Trump?

#276 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-10-04 04:57 PM | Reply

So 2020 is an election with no rules? That what Trump wants! ABSURD!!

#79 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Thunderdome!!

Go raggedy man!

#277 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-10-04 05:20 PM | Reply

I'm defending sanity. You people have gotten completely bonkers.

#268 | POSTED BY RAY

So...

Defending the rule of law and the Constitution is bonkers now.

Says the guy who thinks Trump is not President and who the POTUS thinks has no authority cover him.

Lol What astounding hubris and ignorance. You are learning Trumptilian quite well!

That's funny! I don't care who you are.

This has got to be the best show on earth!

Look what it does to people who watch it.

Oh I am sorry. Ray is not "watching" anything. But, his "sources" tell him what's going on. So he has got this whole thing figured out!

Ray, Trumpy will be impeached. Own it. Just because the Senate refuses to do its job means that he will stay in office. A humiliated man. He won't resign because he has no shame. But, he will even the office in disgrace.

Enjoy the Shart Show. You helped build it by not voting.

#278 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-10-04 05:29 PM | Reply

Correction

He will LEAVE the office in disgrace.

#279 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-10-04 05:30 PM | Reply

Trumpy will be impeached. Own it
He will LEAVE the office in disgrace.
#278 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

That's certainly the left's dream.

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeh! You people believed he was getting help from the Russians.

Says the guy who thinks Trump is not President and who the POTUS thinks has no authority cover him.

As long as they have the guns, I'll still pay what they demand.

This has got to be the best show on earth!

All the way to the 2020 election.

#280 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-04 05:56 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort