How so?

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

In all seriousness, we were told that Trump only wanted publicity in the 2016 and that he wasn't a serious candidate and that he regretted being elected.

But, now, we're being told that he's hungry to secure the presidency again. Why? He's actually performing as a president should perform (and for free).

What's the benefit?

---

It's a pretty common discussion topic here wondering how Obama got so rich after he left the White House. It's not a secret that there are personal benefits for taking the job.

---

I dont think anyone is opposed to a former president writing a memoir and getting rich. Trump could that solely on his first term. Hes already a billionaire, so a multi-million dollar deal may not move the needle.

What benefit does another four years provide?

---

Whether or not you think a multi-million dollar deal will move the needle or not for him, it's still a benefit. But I don't think it's all about money. The Presidency is the ultimate office in the United States. Whoever holds that office lives in infamy, and is a permanent fixture in United States history. It's intangible, but it's a benefit.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

In all seriousness, we were told that Trump only wanted publicity in the 2016 and that he wasn't a serious candidate and that he regretted being elected.

But, now, we're being told that he's hungry to secure the presidency again. Why? He's actually performing as a president should perform (and for free).

What's the benefit?

---

It's a pretty common discussion topic here wondering how Obama got so rich after he left the White House. It's not a secret that there are personal benefits for taking the job.

---

I dont think anyone is opposed to a former president writing a memoir and getting rich. Trump could that solely on his first term. Hes already a billionaire, so a multi-million dollar deal may not move the needle.

What benefit does another four years provide?

---

Whether or not you think a multi-million dollar deal will move the needle or not for him, it's still a benefit. But I don't think it's all about money. The Presidency is the ultimate office in the United States. Whoever holds that office lives in infamy, and is a permanent fixture in United States history. It's intangible, but it's a benefit.

---

By that metric, every decision by any president could be an impeachable offense. Multiple presidents have written multiple books.

GWB's book was titled "Decision Points."

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

In all seriousness, we were told that Trump only wanted publicity in the 2016 and that he wasn't a serious candidate and that he regretted being elected.

But, now, we're being told that he's hungry to secure the presidency again. Why? He's actually performing as a president should perform (and for free).

What's the benefit?

---

It's a pretty common discussion topic here wondering how Obama got so rich after he left the White House. It's not a secret that there are personal benefits for taking the job.

---

I dont think anyone is opposed to a former president writing a memoir and getting rich. Trump could that solely on his first term. Hes already a billionaire, so a multi-million dollar deal may not move the needle.

What benefit does another four years provide?

---

Whether or not you think a multi-million dollar deal will move the needle or not for him, it's still a benefit. But I don't think it's all about money. The Presidency is the ultimate office in the United States. Whoever holds that office lives in infamy, and is a permanent fixture in United States history. It's intangible, but it's a benefit.

---

By that metric, every decision by any president could be an impeachable offense. Multiple presidents have written multiple books.

GWB's book was titled "Decision Points."

---

That was after they left office.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

In all seriousness, we were told that Trump only wanted publicity in the 2016 and that he wasn't a serious candidate and that he regretted being elected.

But, now, we're being told that he's hungry to secure the presidency again. Why? He's actually performing as a president should perform (and for free).

What's the benefit?

---

It's a pretty common discussion topic here wondering how Obama got so rich after he left the White House. It's not a secret that there are personal benefits for taking the job.

---

I dont think anyone is opposed to a former president writing a memoir and getting rich. Trump could that solely on his first term. Hes already a billionaire, so a multi-million dollar deal may not move the needle.

What benefit does another four years provide?

---

Whether or not you think a multi-million dollar deal will move the needle or not for him, it's still a benefit. But I don't think it's all about money. The Presidency is the ultimate office in the United States. Whoever holds that office lives in infamy, and is a permanent fixture in United States history. It's intangible, but it's a benefit.

---

By that metric, every decision by any president could be an impeachable offense. Multiple presidents have written multiple books.

GWB's book was titled "Decision Points."

---

That was after they left office.

---

Their executive powers were exerted during their presidency, not after. If I understand you correctly, you want to impeach Trump based upon what benefit he may secure at some future time.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Quote:

---

OK. So there was evidence that they asked about it. Is there evidence that they were told specifically that they had to do this to get that?

---

There is circumstantial evidence of this in testimony and the call itself, but there is no direct evidence, or smoking gun in the impeachment official record that President Trump directly told Ukraine that they had to get this for that.

Quote:

---

Also, I have heard several claims that Trump was not in a position to withold the aid for any reason. But I have also heard that he did have that right. I am speaking in generalizations, not specific to any reason why or why not. Did he have the right to hold the money?

---

Like you, I've also heard both arguments. I don't have a problem with the President placing a hold as long as it's supported legally and is consistent with US foreign policy. Since President Trump has decided not to release any documents, we don't have a full picture telling us if there was a legitimate reason for the hold.

---

Now I read the 'transcript' of the call. Several times actually. And I saw zero evidence of this in the call. Can you tell me what evidence there is from the transcript?

This is where, and unlike many on here I do appreciate your resonses, but this is where I get off the impeachment train. You say that there is 'circumstantial but no direct evidence.' I have heard some of that testimony you referred to as well and a lot of what I have heard is third hand or conjecture or 'I think he meant'

How do you impeach a president on circumstantial evidence?

---

It bothers me that he brought up the Bidens in the call. My personal viewpoint is that we should not tolerate any foreign interference in our elections. I don't believe there are any exceptions to that. For instance, I don't believe "the President has a right to investigate corruption" is an exception.

I don't think it's acceptable from either party, and any instance that shows Democrats did the same thing should be fully investigated and prosecuted.

After everything that we went through in the 2016 election regarding Russian interference, I can't understand why the President of the United States would take it upon himself to engage another foreign country to take an action that would impact another election.

If he truly believed there was corruption that needed to be investigated, he could have established another special counsel to explore that. That special counsel could have coordinated with Ukraine as part of their investigation.

---

Fair response. I'm done fir the night. I will engage this again tomorrow if you are around.

Have a good night.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

In all seriousness, we were told that Trump only wanted publicity in the 2016 and that he wasn't a serious candidate and that he regretted being elected.

But, now, we're being told that he's hungry to secure the presidency again. Why? He's actually performing as a president should perform (and for free).

What's the benefit?

---

It's a pretty common discussion topic here wondering how Obama got so rich after he left the White House. It's not a secret that there are personal benefits for taking the job.

---

I dont think anyone is opposed to a former president writing a memoir and getting rich. Trump could that solely on his first term. Hes already a billionaire, so a multi-million dollar deal may not move the needle.

What benefit does another four years provide?

---

Whether or not you think a multi-million dollar deal will move the needle or not for him, it's still a benefit. But I don't think it's all about money. The Presidency is the ultimate office in the United States. Whoever holds that office lives in infamy, and is a permanent fixture in United States history. It's intangible, but it's a benefit.

---

By that metric, every decision by any president could be an impeachable offense. Multiple presidents have written multiple books.

GWB's book was titled "Decision Points."

---

That was after they left office.

---

Their executive powers were exerted during their presidency, not after. If I understand you correctly, you want to impeach Trump based upon what benefit he may secure at some future time.

---

I don't understand your comment about executive powers. Once Presidents are citizens again, they no longer have the power of the Presidency, and therefore can't use it for their personal benefit.

Can you clarify your question?

Sure. You seem to argue that if a President acts in any way that might (even in some far fetched circumstance, including writing a book) may personally benefit him/her after their presidency, that those actions are impeachable during their presidency.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Sure. You seem to argue that if a President acts in any way that might (even in some far fetched circumstance, including writing a book) may personally benefit him/her after their presidency, that those actions are impeachable during their presidency.

---

Writing a book was just an example of how being the President could be personally beneficial. Every President has the right to do that once they leave office. While in office though, the President is not permitted to use the power of his office with the intention of benefiting themselves personally.

For instance, Joe Biden is not permitted to use the power of his Vice Presidency to protect his son. If he did, he should be punished.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Sure. You seem to argue that if a President acts in any way that might (even in some far fetched circumstance, including writing a book) may personally benefit him/her after their presidency, that those actions are impeachable during their presidency.

---

Writing a book was just an example of how being the President could be personally beneficial. Every President has the right to do that once they leave office. While in office though, the President is not permitted to use the power of his office with the intention of benefiting themselves personally.

---

How do you measure or determine intent?

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Sure. You seem to argue that if a President acts in any way that might (even in some far fetched circumstance, including writing a book) may personally benefit him/her after their presidency, that those actions are impeachable during their presidency.

---

Writing a book was just an example of how being the President could be personally beneficial. Every President has the right to do that once they leave office. While in office though, the President is not permitted to use the power of his office with the intention of benefiting themselves personally.

---

How do you measure or determine intent?

---

Evidence

What is so odd is how often posts that claim not to be Democrat or Progressive follow to the letter those talking points. Yet there never seems to be many advocating conservative views that deny they are not. Strange.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Sure. You seem to argue that if a President acts in any way that might (even in some far fetched circumstance, including writing a book) may personally benefit him/her after their presidency, that those actions are impeachable during their presidency.

---

Writing a book was just an example of how being the President could be personally beneficial. Every President has the right to do that once they leave office. While in office though, the President is not permitted to use the power of his office with the intention of benefiting themselves personally.

---

How do you measure or determine intent?

---

Evidence

---

Ok, what evidence supports trumps intent to secure some future benefit?

I just hope you understand that slippery (subjective) slope you're advocating for.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

I just hope you understand that slippery (subjective) slope you're advocating for.

---

In my view, the opposite is even more slippery. Think about this:

If President Trump is acquitted every future Democrat President can use the power of their office by withholding foreign aid to solicit foreign governments to open investigations into Republican politicians to intentionally hurt their elections all under the guise of foreign policy and national security.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

I just hope you understand that slippery (subjective) slope you're advocating for.

---

In my view, the opposite is even more slippery. Think about this:

If President Trump is acquitted every future Democrat President can use the power of their office by withholding foreign aid to solicit foreign governments to open investigations into Republican politicians to intentionally hurt their elections all under the guise of foreign policy and national security.

---

Like they don't already do that

n_touch said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

I just hope you understand that slippery (subjective) slope you're advocating for.

---

In my view, the opposite is even more slippery. Think about this:

If President Trump is acquitted every future Democrat President can use the power of their office by withholding foreign aid to solicit foreign governments to open investigations into Republican politicians to intentionally hurt their elections all under the guise of foreign policy and national security.

---

Like they don't already do that

---

The last Democrat one just did, basically.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

I just hope you understand that slippery (subjective) slope you're advocating for.

---

In my view, the opposite is even more slippery. Think about this:

If President Trump is acquitted every future Democrat President can use the power of their office by withholding foreign aid to solicit foreign governments to open investigations into Republican politicians to intentionally hurt their elections all under the guise of foreign policy and national security.

---

Very limited view.

Think about this - Congress has approved a budget including $10Billion in aid to a 3rd world country in desperate need of humanitarian help. Budgets run Oct-Sep.... the money is to be delivered by May. In late April the country has a coup and a militaristic takeover results in a dictator who vows to use the money to attack American citizens abroad and military presence in his country.

But since it's in the budget and Congress approved it and we have precedence (if Trump is impeached) the President is powerless to stop the aid potentially causing the deaths of 100s or 1000s of Americans. Congress is out of session and unable to act quickly (as always). So the money is sent and Americans die just as promised.

But by God we'll feel good about ourselves cuz there wasn't a possibility of political favors being the cause.



And anyway NO they cannot use withholding aid to solicit foreign governments to open investigations - because thats not what happened - the money was sent as intended and when it was intended. If someone actually did withhold aid and demand an investigation that would be grounds for removal from office. It actually never happened.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

I just hope you understand that slippery (subjective) slope you're advocating for.

---

In my view, the opposite is even more slippery. Think about this:

If President Trump is acquitted every future Democrat President can use the power of their office by withholding foreign aid to solicit foreign governments to open investigations into Republican politicians to intentionally hurt their elections all under the guise of foreign policy and national security.

---

Very limited view.

Think about this - Congress has approved a budget including $10Billion in aid to a 3rd world country in desperate need of humanitarian help. Budgets run Oct-Sep.... the money is to be delivered by May. In late April the country has a coup and a militaristic takeover results in a dictator who vows to use the money to attack American citizens abroad and military presence in his country.

But since it's in the budget and Congress approved it and we have precedence (if Trump is impeached) the President is powerless to stop the aid potentially causing the deaths of 100s or 1000s of Americans. Congress is out of session and unable to act quickly (as always). So the money is sent and Americans die just as promised.

But by God we'll feel good about ourselves cuz there wasn't a possibility of political favors being the cause.



And anyway NO they cannot use withholding aid to solicit foreign governments to open investigations - because thats not what happened - the money was sent as intended and when it was intended. If someone actually did withhold aid and demand an investigation that would be grounds for removal from office. It actually never happened.

---

There is nothing preventing the President from putting a stop on that aid if there is a lawful and documented reason, and notifying Congress of the hold and providing them the legal reasoning for doing so.

titan said:

---

n_touch said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

I just hope you understand that slippery (subjective) slope you're advocating for.

---

In my view, the opposite is even more slippery. Think about this:

If President Trump is acquitted every future Democrat President can use the power of their office by withholding foreign aid to solicit foreign governments to open investigations into Republican politicians to intentionally hurt their elections all under the guise of foreign policy and national security.

---

Like they don't already do that

---

The last Democrat one just did, basically.

---

If this is true, then it should have been investigated and prosecuted. Republicans controlled the Presidency, Senate, and House when Trump was elected. Why didn't they?

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

titan said:

---

n_touch said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

I just hope you understand that slippery (subjective) slope you're advocating for.

---

In my view, the opposite is even more slippery. Think about this:

If President Trump is acquitted every future Democrat President can use the power of their office by withholding foreign aid to solicit foreign governments to open investigations into Republican politicians to intentionally hurt their elections all under the guise of foreign policy and national security.

---

Like they don't already do that

---

The last Democrat one just did, basically.

---

If this is true, then it should have been investigated and prosecuted. Republicans controlled the Presidency, Senate, and House when Trump was elected. Why didn't they?

---

It wasn't outed until somewhat into Trump's presidency, and by then you had the Mueller sham roadblocking it all.

Bring on testimony from the Whistle blower! How can we not seek all the truth?

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Sure. You seem to argue that if a President acts in any way that might (even in some far fetched circumstance, including writing a book) may personally benefit him/her after their presidency, that those actions are impeachable during their presidency.

---

Writing a book was just an example of how being the President could be personally beneficial. Every President has the right to do that once they leave office. While in office though, the President is not permitted to use the power of his office with the intention of benefiting themselves personally.

For instance, Joe Biden is not permitted to use the power of his Vice Presidency to protect his son. If he did, he should be punished.

---

But unfortunately, the person with the knowledge, means and authority to initiate that investigation isn't allowed to do so in your view.

captkirk said:

---

---

It would be interesting just for reference to take a national poll in favor of dismissing this Congress. Make it more like the Texas one --sits only now and then.

Bird93 said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Sure. You seem to argue that if a President acts in any way that might (even in some far fetched circumstance, including writing a book) may personally benefit him/her after their presidency, that those actions are impeachable during their presidency.

---

Writing a book was just an example of how being the President could be personally beneficial. Every President has the right to do that once they leave office. While in office though, the President is not permitted to use the power of his office with the intention of benefiting themselves personally.

For instance, Joe Biden is not permitted to use the power of his Vice Presidency to protect his son. If he did, he should be punished.

---

But unfortunately, the person with the knowledge, means and authority to initiate that investigation isn't allowed to do so in your view.

---

There is nothing stopping Attorney General Barr from opening an investigation. White House Counsel today confirmed our DOJ has no such investigation opened. Don't you think that's strange?

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

ANSC Ag said:

---

Would it be ok if Biden wasn't a political opponent?

---

In my personal view, I think so. In that scenario there would be no personal benefit to President Trump. And there wouldn't be any foreign interference in our election.

I also wouldn't have any issues with the FBI & DOJ investigating Joe Biden and his family.

---

Running for president grants some sort of immunity from investigation?

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Bird93 said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Sure. You seem to argue that if a President acts in any way that might (even in some far fetched circumstance, including writing a book) may personally benefit him/her after their presidency, that those actions are impeachable during their presidency.

---

Writing a book was just an example of how being the President could be personally beneficial. Every President has the right to do that once they leave office. While in office though, the President is not permitted to use the power of his office with the intention of benefiting themselves personally.

For instance, Joe Biden is not permitted to use the power of his Vice Presidency to protect his son. If he did, he should be punished.

---

But unfortunately, the person with the knowledge, means and authority to initiate that investigation isn't allowed to do so in your view.

---

There is nothing stopping Attorney General Barr from opening an investigation. White House Counsel today confirmed our DOJ has no such investigation opened. Don't you think that's strange?

---

Aid wasn't withheld ONLY for a Biden investigation, it also included the investigation into 2016 russian disinformation, general issues on corruption reform, and increasing support from other NATO countries.

ANSC Ag said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

ANSC Ag said:

---

Would it be ok if Biden wasn't a political opponent?

---

In my personal view, I think so. In that scenario there would be no personal benefit to President Trump. And there wouldn't be any foreign interference in our election.

I also wouldn't have any issues with the FBI & DOJ investigating Joe Biden and his family.

---

By that logic, people that have committed crimes should run for office so they can't be investigated. When did Biden officially announce he was running? After the Ukraine call?

---

Reread my post.

hbtheduce said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

ANSC Ag said:

---

Would it be ok if Biden wasn't a political opponent?

---

In my personal view, I think so. In that scenario there would be no personal benefit to President Trump. And there wouldn't be any foreign interference in our election.

I also wouldn't have any issues with the FBI & DOJ investigating Joe Biden and his family.

---

Running for president grants some sort of immunity from investigation?

---

No