(05-11-2025 01:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (05-11-2025 12:51 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote: (05-11-2025 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (05-11-2025 12:24 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote: (05-11-2025 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: So the response from the Trumpistas on this transaction is 'nothing to see', 'whadabout (something Biden)', and the general 'nothing but TDS' ?
Seriously?
Nothing at all unsavory? Especially with the apparent aim of Trump keeping it after the Presidency?
So why not wait until there is actual conflict of interest/quid pro quo that looks suspicious? I’ll absolutely grant your argument if that eventually happens, but until then…no.
I guess you are okay with Hunter/ Joe then.
I'm not.
And not for the absolute appearance of something ******.
Glad you wish to write it off.
Quote:Historical context offers that this happens pretty often with other POTUS’. Clinton got a million from Qatar that went to his foundation. Obama received gifts from Saudi Arabia.
During their Presidency? Nope. Not at all the same.
When Hillary was SoS, and later running -- absolutely disgusting appearance.
Quote:Was there quid pro quo there? I don’t recall that happening with Obama and Clinton. Could be wrong.
I think you are conflating out of office issues with in office issues. And absolutely with in office -- it's crappy. It wholly creates the wrong thing. Additionally with the comments that it would follow Trump and not the office -- even more so.
Can you demonstrate where the quid pro quo lies?
“Bribes” can happen during office, and be delayed in order to not violate the emoluments clause. And I’m not saying that Obama and Clinton did anything wrong, unless there was direct actions that helped the bribing country.
If there is zero harm done from a political standpoint, and the money isn’t hurting taxpayers…why does it matter anyway?
Because it sends the message that 'quid pro quo' is the order of the day.
If I send my county commissioner 100k simply because, he should *absolutely* turn it away. And there absolutely *should* be an investigation into the proposed 'gift' (i.e. quid without a pro quo).
Even more so with the Presidency -- especially now that the office of the Presidency now holds an extra special layer of criminal immunity about it.
If the comment is 'there is nothing wrong or bad about it because there isnt any *known* return favor' -- I would say yo uand I live on different planets of what should and should not occur.
Quote:We allow congressional representatives to insider trade and tip the market with impunity and nobody says a word. It’s a joke.
And we shouldnt allow that. And that is the current excuse now?
[/quote]
There’s nothing wrong at all with investigating or talking about it.
My problem is that anyone saying it’s “obvious corruption” when A) we don’t have all the facts yet to the story, B) “gifts” are nothing new, and C) it’s quid pro quo
I’ve asked earlier in this thread for specific evidence of C, but nothing concrete. In order for there to be actual damage done, there needs to be a true gain for Qatar. I’ve already conceded that if this does come to fruition, I will change my stance immediately. What I don’t agree with is jumping to conclusions as Mensa did.
I bring up the congressional aspect because selective enforcement of the law is much more dangerous than Trump getting an airplane from Qatar. Where are the endless amounts of threads calling out prominent politicians on both sides who have enriched themselves over the last 40 years? Why is everything all about Trump? When the focus was on Biden/Ukraine, and people like Dan Crenshaw are raking in millions, I felt the same way. It should have been brought up then as well.
Sorry, I’m very consistent on this part. Either we equally charge everyone or leave everyone alone.