(09-27-2019 12:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I completely agree with you.

But then Trump went ahead and asked a foreign power to investigate his primary opponent for POTUS in the next election, and people within the administration attempted to hide the conversation from the American public.

Whoopsie.

It's pretty clear we don't know whom will emerge from the pack.

If Biden pressured Ukrainian officials and his son profited millions as a result, all you're really saying is that Trump shouldn't have directly acted.... despite clearly speaking to a leader whom also seems to have run as an outsider like trump and on draining the swamp. It does, to people who align that way, seem a natural ask.

Yours is the opinion that most who don't like Trump... most who do, don't care... most in the middle care more about whether Biden pressured Ukraine and his son profited as a result. We KNOW Biden pressured Ukraine and we KNOW his son profited. All we don't know is the 'as a result' part.

As far as 'hiding the conversation', that's a bit of a stretch. It can be inferred but not proven from the facts on the ground... and no significant legal maneuvers were taken to shield the conversation. Trump has hidden his taxes (and Obama his birth certificate) far more aggressively. I doubt many people who don't already hate Trump will feel as you do.

My opinion isn't that if there was shady business between Biden and a Ukrainian oil company that it shouldn't be investigated. It's that the POTUS should not be involved, ESPECIALLY if it involves his political rival.

We KNOW that Trump was involving himself in this matter.

We don't know if there was any wrong doing on either Biden. We KNOW that there were bad optics around it, so if it needs to be investigated, use the proper channels. Trump should not be involving himself, and using the power of his office to influence such investigations, ESPECIALLY when they involve a political rival.

And good God, but your last paragraph is almost crazy. The statement that they tried to hide it isn't "inferred" it is "alleged" - big difference. So either you believe the whistleblower to be truthful, or you think he is lying. At least be honest and say you don't believe him. But how you think it is inferred, based on the complaint itself, is crazy.

The complaint reads:

Quote:In the days following the call I learned from multiple US officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced—as is customary—by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.

White House officials told me that they were "directed" by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.

Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.

You can read the complaint here: https://qz.com/1716859/white-house-knew-...oblematic/

edit: and how can I forget that you actually brought up Obama's birth certificate! Yowza