(10-21-2019 03:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 01:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The president, with all the authority of our government (CIA, FBI, etc.) to investigate whether Joe Biden improperly got his son a job in Ukraine while he was VP instead asks a supposedly corrupt Ukraine to do the investigating via his personal attorney and a couple Russian born thugs with a company named Fraud Guarantee.
Yeah, what could possibly not be legitimate here.
#WhatIfObamaDidThat

All the authority of our government doesn't exactly have jurisdiction in Ukraine. So we can have CIA do it undercover or ask Ukraine to cooperate.

And here's my question. Suppose we have reasonable cause for believing there is some corruption involving American citizens. What do we do? Do we ask Ukraine to cooperate? If not, why not?

You honestly think our law enforcement agencies could not find anything here without any help from Ukraine?

And then there's the whole Rudy/Russian Tweedledee and Tweedledum angle.

Dude, you know damned well this whole thing (the R's trying to claim it was the DNC working with or through Ukraine to alter the 2016 election when our intelligence apparatus already concluded it was Russia) stinks to high heaven, regardless if trump had nothing to do with it. You've just chosen to say meh.

(10-21-2019 03:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 03:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 01:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The president, with all the authority of our government (CIA, FBI, etc.) to investigate whether Joe Biden improperly got his son a job in Ukraine while he was VP instead asks a supposedly corrupt Ukraine to do the investigating via his personal attorney and a couple Russian born thugs with a company named Fraud Guarantee.
Yeah, what could possibly not be legitimate here.
#WhatIfObamaDidThat

All the authority of our government doesn't exactly have jurisdiction in Ukraine. So we can have CIA do it undercover or ask Ukraine to cooperate.
And here's my question. Suppose we have reasonable cause for believing there is some corruption involving American citizens. What do we do? Do we ask Ukraine to cooperate? If not, why not?

You honestly think our law enforcement agencies could not find anything here without any help from Ukraine?
And then there's the whole Rudy/Russian Tweedledee and Tweedledum angle.
Dude, you know damned well this whole thing (the R's trying to claim it was the DNC working with or through Ukraine to alter the 2016 election when our intelligence apparatus already concluded it was Russia) stinks to high heaven, regardless if trump had nothing to do with it. You've just chosen to say meh.

I honestly think our law enforcement agencies would do far better in the Ukraine with the assistance of Ukrainian authorities. Maybe they could find something without help, maybe they couldn't, but regardless, the odds are better with help. Do you disagree?

I know the stink goes back at least to whatever democrats did in 2016, and probably before with Hunter Biden's deal. And from everything I know about Hunter Biden, he is a sleaze of the first order. Do you deny that?

I think there is stink all over the place, so much that I have a hard time knowing what to believe. I would like to some actual, competent evidence to give me a better idea what to believe, but so far I've seen none of that. The plural of neither allegation nor speculation nor innuendo is evidence.

(10-21-2019 03:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 03:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 03:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 01:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The president, with all the authority of our government (CIA, FBI, etc.) to investigate whether Joe Biden improperly got his son a job in Ukraine while he was VP instead asks a supposedly corrupt Ukraine to do the investigating via his personal attorney and a couple Russian born thugs with a company named Fraud Guarantee.
Yeah, what could possibly not be legitimate here.
#WhatIfObamaDidThat

All the authority of our government doesn't exactly have jurisdiction in Ukraine. So we can have CIA do it undercover or ask Ukraine to cooperate.
And here's my question. Suppose we have reasonable cause for believing there is some corruption involving American citizens. What do we do? Do we ask Ukraine to cooperate? If not, why not?

You honestly think our law enforcement agencies could not find anything here without any help from Ukraine?
And then there's the whole Rudy/Russian Tweedledee and Tweedledum angle.
Dude, you know damned well this whole thing (the R's trying to claim it was the DNC working with or through Ukraine to alter the 2016 election when our intelligence apparatus already concluded it was Russia) stinks to high heaven, regardless if trump had nothing to do with it. You've just chosen to say meh.

I honestly think our law enforcement agencies would do far better in the Ukraine with the assistance of Ukrainian authorities. Maybe they could find something without help, maybe they couldn't, but regardless, the odds are better with help. Do you disagree?

I know the stink goes back at least to whatever democrats did in 2016, and probably before with Hunter Biden's deal. And from everything I know about Hunter Biden, he is a sleaze of the first order. Do you deny that?

I think there is stink all over the place, so much that I have a hard time knowing what to believe. I would like to some actual, competent evidence to give me a better idea what to believe, but so far I've seen none of that. The plural of neither allegation nor speculation nor innuendo is evidence.

Everyone knows that Hunter only got that job because of who is father was. But until I see some evidence that Joe orchestrated something or benefited in some way, I don't much care as it's just the way things work and will always work. Throughout history, people get jobs because of their parents and connections over qualifications.

It's no different than any of the trump children and in-laws, as much as they ironically keep lambasting Hunter.

(10-21-2019 01:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 09:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 06:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I watched the whole video. I don't think Wallace was out of line. I think he was just doing his job. I also think Mulvaney more or less explained it, but I see why what he said in the presser looked bad, too.

The thing is---there is absolutely nothing wrong with quid pro quo. Every sanction we put on a country is a quid pro quo. Quit doing "X" and we will drop the sanctions. "Let us use you air base and we will send you aide." Its done all the time.

The only time quid pro quo becomes an issue is when that quid pro quo benefits nobody but Trump. An investigation into potential corruption by a US VP is most certainly of value to the American people. Having the Ukraine investgate Ukrainian involvement in the attempt to influence our 2016 election is most certainly of supreme importance to our nation (the Democrats have claimed NOTHING is important than getting to the bottom of 2016 election interference for over 3 years).

The fact is, the entire purpose of US government foreign policy is to ultimately influence events outside of the US borders so that the world environment is peaceful and works in a way that is good for the United States government and its citizens. In other words, we use carrots and sticks as quid pro quo offers all the time in an effort to mold the world outside of our borders to create a landscape that works best for the US. Thats clearly all Mulvaney was trying to say in his highly criticized press conference.

Thus, the wild eyed "gotcha" over quid pro quo is yet just another big "nothing burger".

Was the President using Congressionally appropriated, taxpayer funds to extort an ally for personal, political gain?

No. First, he never said there was a quid pro quo in the Ukrainian conversation. Furthermore, even if there was---he was using Congressionally appropriated tax payer money to get an investigation into the Ukrainian role in the attempt to interfere in the 2016 election. That was the "favor". The "favor" was some thing that is of great value to the United States as everyone agrees we need the whole story on the attempted interference in the 2016 election. That said, the Trump request was NEVER linked to the aid in that phone call. Furthermore, the discussion about Biden amounted to Trump saying Ukraine "should" look into the Biden stuff because it sounds pretty bad. Again, that would be asking Ukraine (an ally) to look into a possible corruption at the highest level of US government (something that is valuable for the US to know)---Trump is NOT asking the Ukraine to investigate whether Biden hired prostitutes to pee on a bed (something that is of no use to the US government---and would only be valuable as a political weapon).

In review, there is no request for a quid pro quo---and even if there was---the quid pro quo was in return for legitimate behavior with clear valuable benefit for the US government and its citizens. Thus, the quid pro quo impeachment game is---as usual---yet another Democrat snipe hunt.

The president, with all the authority of our government (CIA, FBI, etc.) to investigate whether Joe Biden improperly got his son a job in Ukraine while he was VP instead asks a supposedly corrupt Ukraine to do the investigating via his personal attorney and a couple Russian born thugs with a company named Fraud Guarantee.

Yeah, what could possibly not be legitimate here.

#WhatIfObamaDidThat

Its not our country. Its theirs. US investigative authorities have absolutely zero power in Ukraine. For instance, how is that trial going on all those Russian companies Mueller indicted? Not to mention, when one of those companies actually showed up to face trial, it turned out Mueller didnt have adequate evidence to proceed with the prosecution---why do you suppose that is? Its very hard to investigate something in another nation if you dont have their cooperation.

(10-21-2019 07:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 01:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 09:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The thing is---there is absolutely nothing wrong with quid pro quo. Every sanction we put on a country is a quid pro quo. Quit doing "X" and we will drop the sanctions. "Let us use you air base and we will send you aide." Its done all the time.

The only time quid pro quo becomes an issue is when that quid pro quo benefits nobody but Trump. An investigation into potential corruption by a US VP is most certainly of value to the American people. Having the Ukraine investgate Ukrainian involvement in the attempt to influence our 2016 election is most certainly of supreme importance to our nation (the Democrats have claimed NOTHING is important than getting to the bottom of 2016 election interference for over 3 years).

The fact is, the entire purpose of US government foreign policy is to ultimately influence events outside of the US borders so that the world environment is peaceful and works in a way that is good for the United States government and its citizens. In other words, we use carrots and sticks as quid pro quo offers all the time in an effort to mold the world outside of our borders to create a landscape that works best for the US. Thats clearly all Mulvaney was trying to say in his highly criticized press conference.

Thus, the wild eyed "gotcha" over quid pro quo is yet just another big "nothing burger".

Was the President using Congressionally appropriated, taxpayer funds to extort an ally for personal, political gain?

No. First, he never said there was a quid pro quo in the Ukrainian conversation. Furthermore, even if there was---he was using Congressionally appropriated tax payer money to get an investigation into the Ukrainian role in the attempt to interfere in the 2016 election. That was the "favor". The "favor" was some thing that is of great value to the United States as everyone agrees we need the whole story on the attempted interference in the 2016 election. That said, the Trump request was NEVER linked to the aid in that phone call. Furthermore, the discussion about Biden amounted to Trump saying Ukraine "should" look into the Biden stuff because it sounds pretty bad. Again, that would be asking Ukraine (an ally) to look into a possible corruption at the highest level of US government (something that is valuable for the US to know)---Trump is NOT asking the Ukraine to investigate whether Biden hired prostitutes to pee on a bed (something that is of no use to the US government---and would only be valuable as a political weapon).

In review, there is no request for a quid pro quo---and even if there was---the quid pro quo was in return for legitimate behavior with clear valuable benefit for the US government and its citizens. Thus, the quid pro quo impeachment game is---as usual---yet another Democrat snipe hunt.

The president, with all the authority of our government (CIA, FBI, etc.) to investigate whether Joe Biden improperly got his son a job in Ukraine while he was VP instead asks a supposedly corrupt Ukraine to do the investigating via his personal attorney and a couple Russian born thugs with a company named Fraud Guarantee.

Yeah, what could possibly not be legitimate here.

#WhatIfObamaDidThat

Its not our country. Its theirs. US investigative authorities have absolutely zero power in Ukraine. For instance, how is that trial going on all those Russian companies Mueller indicted? Not to mention, when one of those companies actually showed up to face trial, it turned out Mueller didnt have adequate evidence to proceed with the prosecution---why do you suppose that is? Its very hard to investigate something in another nation if you dont have their cooperation.

Not if RWT was our POTUS!! He'd get to the bottom of this shite by hook or crook by gosh!

(10-21-2019 07:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 01:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 09:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The thing is---there is absolutely nothing wrong with quid pro quo. Every sanction we put on a country is a quid pro quo. Quit doing "X" and we will drop the sanctions. "Let us use you air base and we will send you aide." Its done all the time.

The only time quid pro quo becomes an issue is when that quid pro quo benefits nobody but Trump. An investigation into potential corruption by a US VP is most certainly of value to the American people. Having the Ukraine investgate Ukrainian involvement in the attempt to influence our 2016 election is most certainly of supreme importance to our nation (the Democrats have claimed NOTHING is important than getting to the bottom of 2016 election interference for over 3 years).

The fact is, the entire purpose of US government foreign policy is to ultimately influence events outside of the US borders so that the world environment is peaceful and works in a way that is good for the United States government and its citizens. In other words, we use carrots and sticks as quid pro quo offers all the time in an effort to mold the world outside of our borders to create a landscape that works best for the US. Thats clearly all Mulvaney was trying to say in his highly criticized press conference.

Thus, the wild eyed "gotcha" over quid pro quo is yet just another big "nothing burger".

Was the President using Congressionally appropriated, taxpayer funds to extort an ally for personal, political gain?

No. First, he never said there was a quid pro quo in the Ukrainian conversation. Furthermore, even if there was---he was using Congressionally appropriated tax payer money to get an investigation into the Ukrainian role in the attempt to interfere in the 2016 election. That was the "favor". The "favor" was some thing that is of great value to the United States as everyone agrees we need the whole story on the attempted interference in the 2016 election. That said, the Trump request was NEVER linked to the aid in that phone call. Furthermore, the discussion about Biden amounted to Trump saying Ukraine "should" look into the Biden stuff because it sounds pretty bad. Again, that would be asking Ukraine (an ally) to look into a possible corruption at the highest level of US government (something that is valuable for the US to know)---Trump is NOT asking the Ukraine to investigate whether Biden hired prostitutes to pee on a bed (something that is of no use to the US government---and would only be valuable as a political weapon).

In review, there is no request for a quid pro quo---and even if there was---the quid pro quo was in return for legitimate behavior with clear valuable benefit for the US government and its citizens. Thus, the quid pro quo impeachment game is---as usual---yet another Democrat snipe hunt.

The president, with all the authority of our government (CIA, FBI, etc.) to investigate whether Joe Biden improperly got his son a job in Ukraine while he was VP instead asks a supposedly corrupt Ukraine to do the investigating via his personal attorney and a couple Russian born thugs with a company named Fraud Guarantee.

Yeah, what could possibly not be legitimate here.

#WhatIfObamaDidThat

Its not our country. Its theirs. US investigative authorities have absolutely zero power in Ukraine. For instance, how is that trial going on all those Russian companies Mueller indicted? Not to mention, when one of those companies actually showed up to face trial, it turned out Mueller didnt have adequate evidence to proceed with the prosecution---why do you suppose that is? Its very hard to investigate something in another nation if you dont have their cooperation.

I'm not talking about any court or criminal proceedings. And you actually just proved what I was implying. We were able to find criminal behavior in Russian companies and with Russians.