Debate Now Trump's Abuse of Office

task0778

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2017
12,247
11,350
2,265
Texas hill country
1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's best interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO. No more than any other president has, and not too the level of impeachment.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.
 
Last edited:
The democrats lied and misquoted what they wanted to impeach for. The actual charges are not even valid, the first charge is obstruction of Congress. By the Courts accepting Trumps argument and adjudicating it in court that INVALIDATES that charge all together.. On the second charge they have zero evidence as all they called before their committee were people with OPINIONS. No facts no witnesses to anything.
 
1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's est interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.
1. You've broken your own rule and provided no links to your assertions.

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.
 
1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's est interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.
1. You've broken your own rule and provided no links to your assertions.

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

1. Everything I wrote was my opinion. Ergo, I didn't break my own rules.

2. You don't think Obama was trying so hard to get that deal with Iran to enhance his own presidential legacy? IOW, he DID get something from that deal.

*president*? Trump is the President of the United States, whether you like it or not. And you don't really know whether he was at least in part working for our benefit. I'll ask again, once Biden decides to run for president, should the voters not be made aware of any possible misdeeds on his part?
 
1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's est interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.
1. You've broken your own rule and provided no links to your assertions.

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

1. Everything I wrote was my opinion. Ergo, I didn't break my own rules.

2. You don't think Obama was trying so hard to get that deal with Iran to enhance his own presidential legacy? IOW, he DID get something from that deal.

*president*? Trump is the President of the United States, whether you like it or not. And you don't really know whether he was at least in part working for our benefit. I'll ask again, once Biden decides to run for president, should the voters not be made aware of any possible misdeeds on his part?
"Enhancing his legacy"? That's all ya got? That's not a tangible benefit. He was not doing it for personal gain.

In my opinion the US currently has no president.
 
1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's est interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.
1. You've broken your own rule and provided no links to your assertions.

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

1. Everything I wrote was my opinion. Ergo, I didn't break my own rules.

2. You don't think Obama was trying so hard to get that deal with Iran to enhance his own presidential legacy? IOW, he DID get something from that deal.

*president*? Trump is the President of the United States, whether you like it or not. And you don't really know whether he was at least in part working for our benefit. I'll ask again, once Biden decides to run for president, should the voters not be made aware of any possible misdeeds on his part?
"Enhancing his legacy"? That's all ya got? That's not a tangible benefit. He was not doing it for personal gain.

In my opinion the US currently has no president.
And you failed yet again to answer a direct question.
 
2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

There is not one, single, solitary shred of direct and verifiable evidence to back up that party man stooge talking point....Zero.
 
1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's est interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.
1. You've broken your own rule and provided no links to your assertions.

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

Where are your links.
 
1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's est interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.
1. You've broken your own rule and provided no links to your assertions.

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

Where are your links.
He HAS none, of course. And he seems to have disappeared from this thread. Great for the rest of us!
 
Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt nations in the world, and Trump was right IMHO to request an investigation. If taxpayer funded aid was used as leverage to enrich the former vice president’s son, the American people should know. Seems to me it was the prudent thing to do instead of waiting to see who gets the Dem nomination.

A personal interest is almost always present when politicians act. Some personal benefit is assumed by virtue of the expansive reading given to “anything of value” and the requirement of a quid pro quo. Without some personal or political benefit there could be no “thing of value” and no quid pro quo.

["anything of value" is one of the required elements in the text on the charge of bribery in 18 U.S.C. § 201, the general federal bribery statute, and can include tangibles and intangibles, whether of commercial or subjective value.]

Did President Trump Commit the Federal Crime of Bribery?

The question is whether Trump's request had any legitimacy to it. Some would rule that out, but I think that is unfounded, either way. There is no direct, verifiable evidence or proof. To me, the burden of proof is on the House Dems, if they're going to impeach the POTUS then they oughta have more evidence than what we've seen so far.


NOTE: Opinions are welcome, in fact invited. Most of what I wrote is my opinion, what I was hoping to get was the opinions of others, fact-based or not, to include rationales and reasoning. And I was hoping not to see this thread devolve into one-line ambushes. State your case please, opinion or not.
 
Last edited:
2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

There is not one, single, solitary shred of direct and verifiable evidence to back up that party man stooge talking point....Zero.
Not even mulvany's email withholding the aid 90 minutes after tRump's infamous phone call?

There's a pile of evidence and it keeps growing.
 
1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's est interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.
1. You've broken your own rule and provided no links to your assertions.

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

Where are your links.
I'll.provide some as soon as the OP does.
 
1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's est interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.
1. You've broken your own rule and provided no links to your assertions.

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

Where are your links.
He HAS none, of course. And he seems to have disappeared from this thread. Great for the rest of us!
Some of us have to work, which means going to sleep occasionally.
 
1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's est interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.
1. You've broken your own rule and provided no links to your assertions.

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.
Perhaps you should read it again. I think it's all one big scam to harass Trump with total BS. The democrats should be tried and hanged.
 
1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's est interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.
1. You've broken your own rule and provided no links to your assertions.

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

1. Everything I wrote was my opinion. Ergo, I didn't break my own rules.

2. You don't think Obama was trying so hard to get that deal with Iran to enhance his own presidential legacy? IOW, he DID get something from that deal.

*president*? Trump is the President of the United States, whether you like it or not. And you don't really know whether he was at least in part working for our benefit. I'll ask again, once Biden decides to run for president, should the voters not be made aware of any possible misdeeds on his part?
"Enhancing his legacy"? That's all ya got? That's not a tangible benefit. He was not doing it for personal gain.

In my opinion the US currently has no president.

This is a debate zone.

Your opionin is worthless here (and everywhere else).
You don't want debate, you want another circle jerk.
 
1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.

The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's est interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?

Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.

It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?

My vote? NO.

I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.
1. You've broken your own rule and provided no links to your assertions.

2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.
Perhaps you should read it again. I think it's all one big scam to harass Trump with total BS. The democrats should be tried and hanged.
Read what again?
 
This is Debate Now.

there are 3 rules in the OP posters need to follow.

4 posts have already been deleted for not following those rules.
 
Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt nations in the world, and Trump was right IMHO to request an investigation. If taxpayer funded aid was used as leverage to enrich the former vice president’s son, the American people should know. Seems to me it was the prudent thing to do instead of waiting to see who gets the Dem nomination.

A personal interest is almost always present when politicians act. Some personal benefit is assumed by virtue of the expansive reading given to “anything of value” and the requirement of a quid pro quo. Without some personal or political benefit there could be no “thing of value” and no quid pro quo.

["anything of value" is one of the required elements in the text on the charge of bribery in 18 U.S.C. § 201, the general federal bribery statute, and can include tangibles and intangibles, whether of commercial or subjective value.]

Did President Trump Commit the Federal Crime of Bribery?

The question is whether Trump's request had any legitimacy to it. Some would rule that out, but I think that is unfounded, either way. There is no direct, verifiable evidence or proof. To me, the burden of proof is on the House Dems, if they're going to impeach the POTUS then they oughta have more evidence than what we've seen so far.


NOTE: Opinions are welcome, in fact invited. Most of what I wrote is my opinion, what I was hoping to get was the opinions of others, fact-based or not, to include rationales and reasoning. And I was hoping not to see this thread devolve into one-line ambushes. State your case please, opinion or not.
Trump has the resources of the entire US gov't behind him and they told there was no evidence of corruption. What Trump really wanted was Ukraine to PUBLICLY announce an investigation so he could have chants of 'lock him up' at his rallies should Biden win the nomination. Trump had already been told there was no evidence of wrongdoing so there was no reason to ask for an investigation. He asked anyway. If anyone thinks the Steele Dossier and FISA warrants were wrong, they should think the same about a Ukraine investigation.
 
2. Of course when President Obama returned Iran's money it was meant to influence the favorably to the deal. The difference is it was not for personal gain, it was for the good of the nation. President Obama gained nothing from the deal. The current *president* was not working for the good of the county, but for the good of himself.

There is not one, single, solitary shred of direct and verifiable evidence to back up that party man stooge talking point....Zero.
Not even mulvany's email withholding the aid 90 minutes after tRump's infamous phone call?

There's a pile of evidence and it keeps growing.
That's not evidence...That's more speculation and supposition.

Your "pile" adds up to bupkis.
 
Trump has the resources of the entire US gov't behind him and they told there was no evidence of corruption.

Trump had already been told there was no evidence of wrongdoing so there was no reason to ask for an investigation. He asked anyway.
Told by whom?
What Trump really wanted was Ukraine to PUBLICLY announce an investigation so he could have chants of 'lock him up' at his rallies should Biden win the nomination.
100% speculation.

If anyone thinks the Steele Dossier and FISA warrants were wrong, they should think the same about a Ukraine investigation.

Non sequitur....One does not beget the other....Not an argument.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top