The president is personally enriched every day that someone stays in his hotels, including foreign actors, who have reportedly bought blocks of rooms never used, just to enrich the president. The bribery in this case was for personal gain - manufacturing dirt on a political rival. What about White House employees Jared and Ivanka making $82M last year doing god knows what? What about Jared getting a billion dollar bailout of 666 Park Ave? Are these things all okay, or not? |
Please. All presidents do this. Really, all politicians do this. Take a hard look at some DC politicians. They are all guilty. Democrats and Republicans. |
Those sound much worse than for what he is being investigated. |
It's a ridiculous stretch to see this as bribery. Quid pro quo, yes. |
Did someone make you a flowchart? When you get backed in to a corner, progress to "everyone does it" excuse? It is like we are seeing the results of a flowchart. A: It was bad, but not that bad. B: No, it was actually really, really bad. A: It was bad, but only because of incompetence, not INTENTIONALLY a crime. Some things are worse. B: It was still a crime. A: Everyone else has done it!
|
It was bribery. Please progress directly to your "but everyone else has done it!" portion of your flowchart. |
This is the OP. That's not my argument. |
This is the script. You have to follow the script. I left out "but the process is unfair! No defense attorney! Not letting the defense call witnesses!" part but this is the basic script. |
So if someone doesn't agree with you then they are following a script? Got it. It's a big deal to remove a democratically elected president, and people are going to take it seriously, examine political motives, and many are going to legitimately find, in complete good faith, that this is bad but not a high crime. |
The evidence has been overwhelming. At this point, anyone saying it isn't enough is truly just being willfully ignorant. It isn't a real argument because they are not being honest in their position. |
Please. Not like this. And even if they did, are you saying you are okay with it???? What is wrong with you? |
Quid pro quo is an R talking point. 1) it’s not necessary to prove and 2) he’s guilty as hell of extortion |
| And the argument that it isn't enough because the R-controlled senate won't convict just shows the absurdity of the position. |
Yes it is a high crime. |