Lets talk quid pro quo

You're right, i don't care..

As far as I'm concerned. Democrats have had their three strikes.. they're out..

 

If you want to keep this Republic, you'd better start caring.

 

election law.
§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or


(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

 

What matters is what Graham will propose to be the rules of evidence and he has said he will enter a motion they follow the federal rules of evidence. The limits it to acceptable evidence and not third party hearsay.

 

The aid was released without the investigation. Now let's get on with the investigation that needs to be done.

 

If we want to keep the republic we have to defeat the Democrats

 

Then we will have a debate over the intent of impeachment. I believe you (and Graham) are referring to the federal rules of evidence as applied to criminal prosecutions. House impeachment and Senate conviction are "political prosecutions," NOT criminal prosecutions. If, however, Trump is removed from office by Senate conviction, he may be indicted on criminal charges, as applicable, at which time federal rules of evidence would apply. Sounds to me like Graham is arguing the exact opposite of what he argued in the Senate, as the House "prosecutor," in the Clinton impeachment trial. Poor Lindsey...Party before Country.

 

You need top brush-up on political theory and the importance of the "rule of law" in a republic. You just posted that it didn't matter to you whether Trump broke the law or not.

 

You need to brush up on the constitution and what Democrats stand for

 

I can discuss either, although there is a wide range on the latter. Let's start with the Constitution. Tell me where it says the President is above the law.

 

It doesn't. Can you tell me where in the constitution it says i can't have a seni automatic rifle with a STANDARD 30 round magazine?

 

m
If there was corruption involving Biden (and it certainly sounds like there was), why is it a scandal to ask that it be investigated?? So it's investigated....if Biden did nothing wrong or inappropriate, then he has nothing to worry about, right? In the first place, Biden is not currently a presidential candidate (nor will he be IMO). So, if anyone is suspected of corruption, all they have to do is jump in the race and then the person mentioning it is in trouble? That's silly. Secondly, the issue of "personal gain" intrigues me, as how does Donald Trump gain by any of this?

 

I am a hell of a lot more concerned about government restricting me. Than i am about the president breaking some obscure law that Democrats really had to hunt to find.

 

What does that have to do with the President being above the law? I'll repeat...you posted that you didn't care whether or not the President broke the law.

 

Then you have your priorities upside down.

 

Yes, but there's no guarantee that it will go beyond an inquiry.

 

Although, I understand that there is a criminal law against asking a foreign government specifically for assistance in an election. I remember Judge Napolitano on Fox News saying that.

 

What is different about a Trump’s quid pro quo is that the benefits are to a foreign country (Ukraine) and to an individual (Trump) . Entirely different from negotiations where both benefits go to countries.
That should be obvious. Try another Republican talking point, hopefully one that makes sense.

 

Yes right after a Trump was notified about the whistleblower complaint. That when he made his stupid speech about wanting nothing from Ukraine and that there was no quid pro quo. He knew he was caught and so made a speech that only proved he knew he was guilty.

 

Pathetic.

After the phone transcripts revealed that Fake Don targeted his political rival "Biden" more than once when he tried to shakedown Zelensky and "corruption" not at all, after all the dedicated public servants testified under oath (despite Trump's thwarted attempt to gag them) and confirmed the allegations of the whistleblower, after all the desperate denials of the "quid pro quo" being discredited, after the revelation that Fake Don only released the vital funds he had withheld (without explanation) to gain his personal "favor" after the whistle had blown, after all but the hardcore zealots of Trumpery had stopped spouting the bogus tale that "Ukraine" had interfered in the 2016 US presidential election and not "Russia", to help Trump, as confirmed by the FBI, NSA, CIA, and Republican-controlled Senate Special Committee on Intelligence, they are relegated to the laughable pretext that Fake Don's personal political interests are a legitimate excuse for manipulating America's foreign policy via coercion of foreign nations?

As the Trump regime had affirmed before the funds were initially okayed, Ukraine had made great strides in overcoming corruption under Zelensky (the dismissal of the corrupt prosecutor Shokin that Biden, consistent with US policy, along with the EU, IMF, and democratic reformers within Ukraine, had demanded - a sleazebag with whom Giuliani had been colluding - to destroy a competent US ambassador by lies about her?

"This ambassador that everyone says is so wonderful,
she wouldn't hang MY picture in the embassy!"

(A lie, of course, of the "prayer rugs and duct-taped women!"
strewn about the border variety.)
​

These are the lowlifes who are eager to slime a patriotic, Purple Heart recipient for being foreign-born, for being conversant in foreign languages, for being Jewish?

If Ukraine was facing a corruption problem, it was invasive, virulent Trumpery.

"At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

​

​

 

You still hanging on to that canard?

There's so much first hand evidence now that corroborates the "hearsay" that it doesn't matter.

Oh and there are about 35 exceptions to the hearsay rule so...Lindsey is just gonna end up looking stupid...as usual

 

Exactly. Trump held the aid up for months...and released it within two days of getting CAUGHT

 

Nonsense.

The claim was that Joe got the corrupt prosecutor removed to protect his son from an ongoing investigation.

We know THAT is bogus since there WAS no investigation.

 

And the hilarious thing was the Republicans touting that as proof there was no quid pro quo. Of course they have largely abandoned that bit of fraudulent reasoning and are off in search of new equally illogical excuses for Trump’s behavior.

Maybe “ Rudy did it “will work for awhile.

 

Absolutely not, the things Democrats are proposing WILL destroy this country.
Trump is an aberration and he'll be gone in 2024