(01-24-2020 06:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (01-23-2020 10:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Here is a recap from the last couple of days:
Biden actually fessed up on video how he threatened the Ukraine with withholding funds if they didnt sack an investigator whom was digging into Burisma. That is copacetic.
Trump threatened to withhold funds if Ukraine doesnt make movement on investigating the previous action. This is bad.
If Trump investigated anyone but a (D), there would be no impeachment.
The President shouldnt *ever* have a political rival investigated, 'even if they are corrupt as hell'.
Is there anything to add?
Quite the grouping these four statements make as a whole, I would say.
You’re a lawyer, right?
So shouldn’t you be very well acquainted with the idea that legal outcomes of a single action can be different based on the context of the actions?
Or in your eyes, if somebody kills another person, that person is always and obviously guilty of murder, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the action?
No doubt; but here is where we differ.
You believe there is 'no smoke in anything whatsoever' with Burisma. Kind of sua sponte. Kind of 'everyone move along folks. Nothing here.'
Accordingly, and because of that ingrained belief, you think there is zero aspect to any legitimate intent whatsoever with Trump's actions.
I am saying, well, golly, gee willikers, there does seem something fishy with Biden's self-admitted bully job on Ukraine; maybe there might be something, maybe not. But, let's take a look.
But even with that modicum of 'maybe there is something, maybe not', there is a basis of a clear clean intent when calling for an investigation into Hunter's actions and into Slow Joe's actions. You know, that small little modicum that you cannot even bring yourself to self-admit.....
And because of your predetermined, solid as the law of Gravity self-assuredness that there is zero smoke, zero modicum -- Trump's actions now have that same self-assured imprimatur of nothing *but* self-dealing and self-benefit.
That leads you to even more outlandish ideas, you know, stuff like: No President should ever investigate a political rival, even if they are crooked as hell. And that happens to be the *only* safe space in which that deep self-assuredness of zero possibility of any true intent by Trump is safe, I guess.
So, your paean above to different outcomes all boils down to intent. And it outlines in its glow your stunning, resolute, and absolute refusal to even entertain the smallest smidgen of even a hint that, perhaps, there is even a very, very small basis of 'good' intent in Trump's action.
And it makes absolutely clear your steadfast Berlin 1945 bunker-esque refusal to even *consider* for even an iota of time or amount that the coke fiend was playing fast and loose, and that Slow Joe might be covering for it with his very similar 'strong arm'.
And it makes your somewhat inane point about never investigating a political rival 'even when they are crooked as hell' even more understandable --- anything to make *your* pre-determination acceptable *after* the fact of your pre-determination.
The singular truth is that is if there is even a hint, any miasma, or any waft of *anything at all* wrong with coke fiend turned patrimony suit contempt subject's actions being wrong or unsavory, that means there is a thread of validity to Trump's request.
Thank you for bringing up the subject of intent. I was going to do so shortly, but you kind of indirectly opened the door for me.