A
Aquinas11
Guest
Wasn’t he seen crying at the Hillary losing party?
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
petra22:
Sorry, would infer be better? Yes, we can infer that what Trump sought from the Ukrainian government was personal since he sent his personal attorney. There. That is better.
Definition of infer
transitive verb1 : to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises
Inference is a logical step, not a subjective pronouncement.
Inference implies premises or evidence logically entails the conclusion. You are very far from that.
We could conclude, following your line of thinking, that Pelosi’s, Schiff’s and Schumer’s attempt to impeach Trump is all personal since they have a history of personal dislike for Trump.
We could also conclude Biden’s attempt to rescue his son from Ukrainian prosecution was also personal given that Hunter is Joe’s “personal” son.
See how your “logic” works against you?
Last edited:
D
drcube
Guest
Actually, I have done it. Trump claims that he did nothing wrong because he was acting as a government official when asking the Ukrainian President to investigate corruption. That is, it was a request on behalf of the government. The falsehood of that is shown by involving his personal attorney; hence showing it was really a personal request.
But Pelosi, Schiff and Schumer didn’t involve their personal attorneys, did they?
His son didn’t need rescuing since he wasn’t under investigation.
No because you have failed to make a counterargument.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Unfortunately, you are presuming an either/or here. That would be an example of a false dilemma, a logical fallacy. What is in error is that even though Trump is president, he remains a private citizen. Ergo, he is wearing two hats and could be representing the government at the same time as Giuliani is representing him as his personal attorney. He doesn’t lose all rights as an individual citizen just because he is president.HarryStotle:
Actually, I have done it. Trump claims that he did nothing wrong because he was acting as a government official when asking the Ukrainian President to investigate corruption. That is, it was a request on behalf of the government. The falsehood of that is shown by involving his personal attorney; hence showing it was really a personal request.
What complicates the matter is that several investigations into Trump are ongoing so he has rights to personal attorneys to represent him against those pending investigations/trials, even as he serves as president. It is his personal conduct on trial, not the office of president. He still has to fulfill his duties as president lest he be accused of and impeached for dereliction of his duties.
Touché
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
How is exposing Govt corruption not in the National interest?
D
dvdjs
Guest
Surely you realize that Joe Biden did not confess to "demanding a prosecutor be fired investigating [his] son on video.
Surely you realize that “what Trump sought from the Ukrainian government” was not the “exposure of Govt corruption”, but a smear of his opponent.
Last edited:
J
JButky
Guest
Why? Because it says the same thing. Trump didn’t tell him anything. Zelensky asked, Trump offered. Same as the part I quoted.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
So why did Zelinsky bring up the fact his team had already been in contact with Giuliani after Trump asked for a favor?
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
Are you talking about yet another case where an investigation pushed by Trump came up empty?
Trump Tower wiretapping allegations - Wikipedia
Last edited:
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
This literally was the goal of US foreign policy. We wanted him out, the entire EU wanted him out, and the IMF wanted him out. There was no co-opt-ing.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Perhaps the most erudite statement of the year.
D
drcube
Guest
The matter with the Ukraine has been presented as Trump acting in the national interest. If Trump was acting in the national interest, his personal attorney should not have been involved. Hence, the involvement of his personal attorney shows that this was a personal matter, not a matter of national interest.
If it were truly in the national interest, Trump’s personal attorney should not have been involved.
The Democrats have passed quite a few bills in the House of Representatives that the Senate refuses to take up. So, it’s the Republican Senators that seem to have issues with the law making part of their job.
T
Theo520
Guest
That’s some weird logic.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Perhaps this was a way to avoid obligations under the official records act?
D
drcube
Guest
Not really. Matters of national interest are usually dealt with by members of the administration, not the personal employees of the President.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
Logan Act - Wikipedia
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think the poster’s point was that she would prefer that the congress pass fewer laws of any kind. A friend of mine who was a conservative senator shared that view, and so do I.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
And yet Democrat president Clinton actually received personal favors from Chinese government in form of $300,000 secretly donated to his campaign in violation of the law…uh oh…
Testimony Links Top China Official, Funds for Clinton
Ex-Democratic fund-raiser Chung told U.S. investigators that military intelligence chief secretly directed $300,000 to help president in '96. Embassy spokesman denies Beijing was involved in elections.
www.latimes.com
R
RuthAnne
Guest
I think the first amendment should have ended with “Congress shall make no law.”
(Your reply was spot on.)
Last edited:
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
But OrangevMan baaaaad! Remember that!:woman_facepalming:t2:
- Status