Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Just discussing here but.... isn't that always the case? Someone gets caught at something improper or illegal and they immediately stop and put back whatever they were taking and say that they intended to put it back all along?
Not factually wrong. To delay is different than withheld. To say he withheld it until August, would be accurate. To say he withheld it period, not so accurate.
It also amounts to the same thing to say - I was just delaying the aid until I got what I wanted from the Ukrainians.
He was legally obligated to do so before the end of the fiscal year unless there was some specific requirement which stated otherwise.
But that's just it, he did not meet any specific requirement. All agencies required to certify did so, upon that the president was obligated to release the aid.
Yes. But you must say 'until September 11th' simply withhold would imply he never gave it. The analogy here is not stealing. The better analogy could be complaining about not getting a Christmas gift on December 15th.
I’d say more “Hey tiny tim we have your gift right here you just need to do me a personal favor would be a shame if all this got lost you sure do look hungry”
It's worse than that actually. Ukraine is in a war, in Europe. Aid was authorized by early July, while we were withholding - delaying - aid, their people were dying on the front lines.
This was always where this was heading. Deny deny deny, deflect deflect deflect. SOP theses days.
Allegedly - that's what is being accused even though specifically Trump said that wasn't what was being done. There is no proof of that happening, only hearsay and wildly incontestably assumptions.
Look like fools to whom? I'd argue they are only looking like fools to people who already thought they were fools.
Trump saying he didn’t do this means nothing. Why do you accept that as some typnof proof he didn’t order all this when presented everything last week? Guilty people say they are innocent all the time.
What I believe he's saying is (in your own analogy from above): He put the money back in the till (after he was caught but before it should have been counted at the end of the day), therefore he didn't steal
I understand that, and I get the idea, which I think Jon was suggesting, is if the Dems or WB had waited until after the final date then they could have said ah-ha, no getting out of this one. - But the way it works is that the WB blew the whistle when it happened. Once someone sees a crime happening they're obligated to stop it, and that's what happened here. Trump was stopped. But that's also why we have 'attempted' crimes.
Sigh.
"Quid pro quo" is a Latin phrase. It means roughly "this for that." In other words, the phrase describes the context when something is given in return for something else. The phrase means the same thing as the English saying "a ### for a tat", or trading something for something else.
that WHAT happened?
He held back money, he was caught. His people admitted this was the plan at the direction of his personal attorney. Thanks to the WB and testimony of life long diplomats when know this. true patriots there. Ironically his crony Sondland gave some of the most compelling info.
Sondland's 'most compelling info' was he just assumed it was and that really is the best you got.
He and the team Trump placed in charge of this were being directed by Giuliani. Trump said you work through Rudy.
Yes, and his compelling theory that the aid was in fact tied to the investigation was just something he 'came to believe'. The lynchpin of the whole impeachment rests on something that is merely a presumption and a belief with no actual knowledge that it is a fact.
As did Trump multiple tomes with the “why would I give them money”...when its clear the investigations he spoke of were not about corruption.
Trump was dim enough to “ask for a favor”.
Hmmm...the call summary talked about investigations including Hunter among others. But nothing that clearly tied the Biden investigation to the aid. Certainly if you read between the lines you can reach that conclusion.
And the server! The president thinks there’s a rich guy in the Ukraine with a server with Hillary’s emails. This alone should frighten you enough to impeach
Yeah that was done by his personal attorney and his hand picked team.
Trump's intelligence and demeanor makes him easy to beat. The Dems would have a double digit lead if they focused on mainstream issues. Instead they are spending all their capital on a fruitless impeachment effort and are running neck to neck instead.And the server! The president thinks there’s a rich guy in the Ukraine with a server with Hillary’s emails. This alone should frighten you enough to impeach
Agreed Dems are bad at the whole getting elected thing.
Again, this thread has gotten way off track--we have plenty of threads to discuss the impeachment details.
Even if I accepted the notion that the mainstream media is to be considered a liberal entity (which I don’t, but we’ve had that debate before) that still doesn’t mean that they are deliberate in the nature of their reporting to the extent that you imply here.
