My argument is the call is all you have.
I almost missed this. That’ll be the ■■■■■■■ day.
Colin Powell is highly accomplished and influential on his own merits. Hunter has no accomplishment except to be appointed to boards for which he has nothing to offer except influence with his connected father.
Why should I? It is immaterial to this discussion. Whataboutism has to be in context to have any validity.
Can the president serve the functions of his office if he does not engage foreign leaders? It seems he can as the Constitution does not identify his role in these regards.
Exactly what I said. Your whataboutism is immaterial.
So, you believe Trump has all the “rights” afforded Clinton PLUS his lawyers may question witnesses in the house? Is that it?
Most of the time yes, but in this particular case it is very material. What Biden did on behalf of the Obama Administration, is pretty much the same as what Trump is accused of doing. Only the motive is different.
1 Like
Willful ignorance. In order to come to that conclusion you have to ignore so many things that have been presented. Things you are aware of but make an effort to ignore.
On your part, yes. The two incidents are more alike than they are different.
Maybe I give you too much credit. Maybe you are just ignorant of the fact that there was a planned and concerted effort to achieve a specific outcome that would personally benefit trump.
This isn’t about a phone call.
You are right, it’s not about the phone call, it’s about threatening to withhold promised financial aid to coerce a foreign government to do the bidding of the US. Biden bragged about how well it worked too.
As far as the personal benefit … aren’t you just the least bit curious as to why Hunter got the job?
I’ve already addressed my thoughts on Biden.
The military aid that trump was withholding is not as big of a deal as the fact that he wanted a public statement from Ukraine about an investigation into Biden.
The fact that this was the stated goal makes it completely different than what Biden did.
You have your view, I have mine.
How’s it feel, spending years of your life defending a guy who turned out to have done exactly the kinda stuff you swore he wasn’t?
4 Likes
Its not what I believe, its what any of us could plainly see if we gathered our information broadly across the spectrum of talking points.
Trump’s lawyers can question witnesses. Clinton’s lawyers could not.
Trump will receive ALL the evidence gathered in the Impeachment Inquiry and subsequent process. Clinton was not given this privilege in the rules the Republicans set.
Trump’s team can call witnesses. Clinton’s team did not have the power to call witnesses.
Based on this, I have pointed out that for all the whining Trump and his supporters are doing about the process, the rules of the impeachment process are much more favorable to Trump than they were to Clinton.
What nonsense. Subject to the discretion of a liar like Schiff.
2 Likes
So you can’t actually find any problems with the process. Point well made.
So you agree that Schiff is a liar and the process remains a sham with him holding depositions and having veto power.
1 Like
I am not sure whom this is a response to, but I do find it funny that Trump supporters are all upset about Schiff having powers that were conferred on the majority when John Boehner was Speaker, as if they expected only Republican would hold the majority forever.
As to your harping on Schiff being a liar. Yes, he has said things that are untrue. So has Trump, so has Barr. So I’ll offer you a deal. If lying is the new standard, let Schiff and Trump both resign. That would be equitable. Otherwise we will continue to both support people who do not always speak the absolute truth. That is equitable as well.
And while the Republican House rule changes – put in place to facilitate investigations of Hillary Clinton – are not good rules, its hard to see Republican supporters complaining when their own bad ideas are used against them.
5 Likes
