Red Faced, Trump Backs Out Of Using Doral Resort As Host Of G7 summit

[Jollybear]

Sure.

Ya........suuuuurrrree. you call me a lier ill write you off in my mind. I dont give a **** since i know for a fact im honest.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You said you wer flipping back to look for it and couldnt find it. So, i found it for you. There it is.

Basically, you punish EVIL itself, not the appearence of evil.

I didn't say that at all. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

What I said was that I already responded to it and you didn't address my response, but instead, just posted it all over again.

Could you respond to the bulk of my post now?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, you think....man.....

Trump said why he asked. He said it right in the call. To see if there was potential corruption going on. That was his intent.

Now, does he want to win realection? No doubt about it, but, so does all the other candidates.

And heres the thing, and you may not like this, but, i dont give a dam, every political opponent points out flaws about there opponents. But, somehow if trump does it, its off limits?

And look, if ukraine investigates the issue, thats not messing with our ellection because there not hacking voting booths and changing voting numbers. There not telling americans who to vote for. There not making adds to advertize who they would like america to vote for. All they would be doing is investigating a potential crime. And that is perfectly inline with the contract the USA has with ukraine.

Again, i dont care if you dont like this, too bad, accept it.

Trump said right in the call what he wants - a favour in return for giving Ukraine the javelins/military aid they desperately needed and were already granted by an act of Congress. That favour being that Ukraine dig up some dirt on Biden, Trump's political rival. Trump was withholding the funds appropriated by Congress, when it wasn't up to him to do so. That's called extortion. And not only that, Trump wanted Ukraine to publicly announce that they were investigating Biden. Why do you think that is? Perhaps to sway the electorate his way. For none other than Trump's personal gain. That has nothing to do with ensuring the safety and security of the United States and everything to do with him winning the upcoming election. Please note that at least one witness (Vindman) who testified at the impeachment inquiry was concerned that Trump's actions were undermining national security, which is the reason he reported his concerns to his higher ups. Stop being so naive and think a little bit.

Some things are crimes, and some aren't. Some things are abuses of power, and some aren't. Presidents don't get to commit crimes and get away with it. Presidents don't get to abuse their power, and get away with it. There are safeguards in the Constitution to protect against those very things. I don't care if you like that or not, or understand what the laws are, or not. It seems you've never read the Constitution and are barely aware of what it says anway.

And you never did answer my question about why you think so many people from this administration felt the need to report the call to higher authorities and then to testify in front Congress about their concerns surrounding not only the call, but everything having to do with Trump's interactions with Ukraine and Guiliani's involvement in some kind of rogue foreign policy scheme.

 

[Jollybear]

I didn't say that at all. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Heres what you told me "When did you answer the question, “how can you not see how even the appearance of impropriety is a problem?” What was your answer?

The emoluments clause? I just went back 4 pages and didn’t see it anywhere."

You did not say that?

After you said that, thats when i flipped back and found it for you.

Are you following along?

What I said was that I already responded to it and you didn't address my response, but instead, just posted it all over again.

No, you didnt respond to it. Otherwise you wouldnt have said you wer flipping back pages to find it and didnt.

Could you respond to the bulk of my post now?

No, i wont because as i told you earlier im not making my posts into mammoth sizes to the point i start typing you a magazine. Im doing this in bite sizes.

The emoluments clause explanation i gave you is the one i agree with. The one you gave me, i read it and i disagree with it.

 

[Jollybear]

Trump said right in the call what he wants - a favour in return for giving Ukraine the javelins/military aid they desperately needed and were already granted by an act of Congress. That favour being that Ukraine dig up some dirt on Biden, Trump's political rival. Trump was withholding the funds appropriated by Congress, when it wasn't up to him to do so. That's called extortion. And not only that, Trump wanted Ukraine to publicly announce that they were investigating Biden. Why do you think that is? Perhaps to sway the electorate his way. For none other than Trump's personal gain. That has nothing to do with ensuring the safety and security of the United States and everything to do with him winning the upcoming election. Please note that at least one witness (Vindman) who testified at the impeachment inquiry was concerned that Trump's actions were undermining national security, which is the reason he reported his concerns to his higher ups. Stop being so naive and think a little bit.

Some things are crimes, and some aren't. Some things are abuses of power, and some aren't. Presidents don't get to commit crimes and get away with it. Presidents don't get to abuse their power, and get away with it. There are safeguards in the Constitution to protect against those very things. I don't care if you like that or not, or understand what the laws are, or not. It seems you've never read the Constitution and are barely aware of what it says anway.

And you never did answer my question about why you think so many people from this administration felt the need to report the call to higher authorities and then to testify in front Congress about their concerns surrounding not only the call, but everything having to do with Trump's interactions with Ukraine and Guiliani's involvement in some kind of rogue foreign policy scheme.

He asked for a favor. He said he wanted OTHER countries to help ukraine.

The contract between USA and ukraine shows trump was legal in asking this.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

He asked for a favor. He said he wanted OTHER countries to help ukraine.

The contract between USA and ukraine shows trump was legal in asking this.

Are you completely oblivious to the fact that using your political office and diplomatic power in an effort to extort foreign powers to attack and defame your political rivals for personal gain is illegal?

Again, do you know anything about how your country works??

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess I have to ask again ...

Why do you think so many people in the White House were concerned enough about the call to report it to someone and then later testify to Congress about how their concern?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Heres what you told me "When did you answer the question, “how can you not see how even the appearance of impropriety is a problem?” What was your answer?

The emoluments clause? I just went back 4 pages and didn’t see it anywhere."

You did not say that?

After you said that, thats when i flipped back and found it for you.

Are you following along?



No, you didnt respond to it. Otherwise you wouldnt have said you wer flipping back pages to find it and didnt.


No, i wont because as i told you earlier im not making my posts into mammoth sizes to the point i start typing you a magazine. Im doing this in bite sizes.

The emoluments clause explanation i gave you is the one i agree with. The one you gave me, i read it and i disagree with it.

I know what the emoluments clause says. That isn't what we were talking about. What I was responding to was your assertion that, "I already gave an article about what scholars believed on the clause." What you re-posted is a definition of the clause and as far as I can see, didn't contain scholarly opinions on the subject.

I'm not sure why I should bother continuing with you if you're just going to cherry pick which parts of my posts to respond to. That way, you get to ignore the stuff you don't like. That's way too convenient for you.

 

[Jollybear]

I know what the emoluments clause says. That isn't what we were talking about.

Actually, it was what we wer talking about, in fact, its what the thread itself is about!

And i told you i disagreed with your article and agreed with the one i gave. You flipped back to find it, said you couldnt. So i flipped back, found it for you. Then you said you didnt say that. Then i flipped back, found your quote and showed you that you DID say you wer flipping back to look for it.

Are you ok man?

What I was responding to was your assertion that, "I already gave an article about what scholars believed on the clause." What you re-posted is a definition of the clause and as far as I can see, didn't contain scholarly opinions on the subject.

Actually it was containing scholarly opinions on the subject.

I'm not sure why I should bother continuing with you if you're just going to cherry pick which parts of my posts to respond to.

And i already told you THREE times now, im not going to answer your big mammoth posts which would make mine even bigger.

You wanna dfo this in bite sizes, fine. Ask one question at a time. Ill answer it. If it satisfies you, then ask another. If it dont satisfy, then we can argue that line before asking another. That way the posts dont get too big. I work for a living.

That way, you get to ignore the stuff you don't like. That's way too convenient for you.

No, it has nothing to do with what i like or is convenient. It has everything to do with time and not wanting to be addressing a bunch of issues at the same time. One thing at a time.

If you dont like that style and if you wanna keep minipulating through lying to me about what you said or didnt say, then that tells me YOUR not worth my time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually, it was what we wer talking about, in fact, its what the thread itself is about!

And i told you i disagreed with your article and agreed with the one i gave. You flipped back to find it, said you couldnt. So i flipped back, found it for you. Then you said you didnt say that. Then i flipped back, found your quote and showed you that you DID say you wer flipping back to look for it.

Are you ok man?
Actually it was containing scholarly opinions on the subject.

What I am/was trying to find was your article containing scholarly opinions on the emoluments clause.

And i already told you THREE times now, im not going to answer your big mammoth posts which would make mine even bigger.
You wanna dfo this in bite sizes, fine. Ask one question at a time. Ill answer it. If it satisfies you, then ask another. If it dont satisfy, then we can argue that line before asking another. That way the posts dont get too big. I work for a living.

Then I guess we're done here. If you're not going to bother to respond the the substance of my posts, then what's the point?
When you do respond to my posts, you don't respond to the substance. Instead, you respond to everything else, in order to avoid the facts, I suppose. Who knows.

I posted a single question in post #267. That was the second time I asked the question.
You did not respond.

No, it has nothing to do with what i like or is convenient. It has everything to do with time and not wanting to be addressing a bunch of issues at the same time. One thing at a time.

If you dont like that style and if you wanna keep minipulating through lying to me about what you said or didnt say, then that tells me YOUR not worth my time.

Now you're calling me a liar?
Yeah, this is a waste of time.
You're apparently immune to facts anyway.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He asked for a favor. He said he wanted OTHER countries to help ukraine.

The contract between USA and ukraine shows trump was legal in asking this.

What are you talking about?

 

[Jollybear]

What I am/was trying to find was your article containing scholarly opinions on the emoluments clause.

Then I guess we're done here. If you're not going to bother to respond the the substance of my posts, then what's the point?
When you do respond to my posts, you don't respond to the substance. Instead, you respond to everything else, in order to avoid the facts, I suppose. Who knows.

I posted a single question in post #267. That was the second time I asked the question.
You did not respond.


Now you're calling me a liar?
Yeah, this is a waste of time.
You're apparently immune to facts anyway

"Constitutional scholars suggest the Emoluments Clause was added to prevent American ambassadors of the 1700s, living abroad from being influenced or corrupted by gifts from wealthy European powers." What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts

What are you talking about?

Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

This is the contract the USA has with ukraine. The president has the legal right to ask ukraine to investigate corruption.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Constitutional scholars suggest the Emoluments Clause was added to prevent American ambassadors of the 1700s, living abroad from being influenced or corrupted by gifts from wealthy European powers." What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts

That's what you were referring to?? I thought you were talking about scholarly opinions on the current state of affairs involving Trump.

So the emoluments clause exists to minimize foreign influence and corruption. As pointed out by myself and numerous others on the thread.

Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

This is the contract the USA has with ukraine. The president has the legal right to ask ukraine to investigate corruption.

First of all, as someone else already pointed out, treaties don't supersede the Constitution.
Secondly, Trump and co. specifically asked the Ukraine to investigate his political rival, and never mentioned anyone or anything else. They not only withheld much needed military aid, but they also withheld a meeting in the White House contingent upon the President of the Ukraine going on national television (Fareed Zakaria's show on CNN) to announce publicly that they were investigating the Bidens. That's extortion. The military aid that Trump withheld was already appropriated by Congress, so that the President had no right to withhold it.

What the President doesn't have a right to do is ask a foreign power to investigate his political rivals for personal political reasons. That's what he did. Trump wanted dirt on the Bidens that he could use in the upcoming election. He enlisted Rudy Guiliani, his personal lawyer, a man who did not work in any capacity for the US Government, to work behind the scenes to achieve these ends. Numerous witnesses have corroborated that. The "transcript" released by the White House confirms that. Trump's own words on television confirm that. Furthermore, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testifed that Trump's actions undermined the national security of the United States. The President's job is to protect the national security of the United States.

 

[Jollybear]

That's what you were referring to?? I thought you were talking about scholarly opinions on the current state of affairs involving Trump.

So the emoluments clause exists to minimize foreign influence and corruption. As pointed out by myself and numerous others on the thread.

Thats what i was refering to, yes. And so it is, the clause is refering to bribery, not appearence.

First of all, as someone else already pointed out, treaties don't supersede the Constitution.

Lol, why would the USA create a treaty BEFORE trump came to office that goes against the constitution? Come on man

"Think a little"

And, no, that treaty dont go against the usa constitution.

It goes against YOUR constitution.

Secondly, Trump and co. specifically asked the Ukraine to investigate his political rival, and never mentioned anyone or anything else.

Yes, he mentioned the DNC server too.

And asking to look into biden is not illegal. Nor wrong, nor immoral. Its actually quite stupid to think its wrong to ask this.

They not only withheld much needed military aid, but they also withheld a meeting in the White House contingent upon the President of the Ukraine going on national television (Fareed Zakaria's show on CNN) to announce publicly that they were investigating the Bidens. That's extortion. The military aid that Trump withheld was already appropriated by Congress, so that the President had no right to withhold it.

Yes, he as commander in cheif does have a right. Its in the constitution where he has a right to inforce laws.

"Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

What was he enforcing? That ukraine make sure its fighting corruption and investigating it. According to the treaty.

And he also wanted other countries to give aid.

What the President doesn't have a right to do is ask a foreign power to investigate his political rivals for personal political reasons. That's what he did. Trump wanted dirt on the Bidens that he could use in the upcoming election. He enlisted Rudy Guiliani, his personal lawyer, a man who did not work in any capacity for the US Government, to work behind the scenes to achieve these ends. Numerous witnesses have corroborated that. The "transcript" released by the White House confirms that. Trump's own words on television confirm that. Furthermore, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testifed that Trump's actions undermined the national security of the United States. The President's job is to protect the national security of the United States.

Trump has every right to ask ukraine to investigate the bidens. There is no logical reason he cannot.

 

[metis]

Bribing a foreign entity to investigate an American citizen for political purposes is a felony under our federal law. And even any such legal questions are not to be done by the president nor the president's lawyer but by the CIA and/or by the DoJ. And the "smoking guns " are now clearly in, namely that Trump wanted "dirt" on the Bidens and used payments for military ware to be withheld from the Ukrainians, which happened.

IOW, it's now a slam-dunk, so now the question is whether it is an impeachable violation? Maybe/maybe not, but the fact that Trump is clearly obstructing justice by trying to stop legal testimony as found in Article 1 of the Constitution is very much so-- just ask Tricky Dicky-- although one may have a hard time getting him to answer at this time.

 

[Jollybear]

Bribing a foreign entity to investigate an American citizen for political purposes is a felony under our federal law. And even any such legal questions are not to be done by the president nor the president's lawyer but by the CIA and/or by the DoJ. And the "smoking guns " are now clearly in, namely that Trump wanted "dirt" on the Bidens and used payments for military ware to be withheld from the Ukrainians, which happened.

IOW, it's now a slam-dunk, so now the question is whether it is an impeachable violation? Maybe/maybe not, but the fact that Trump is clearly obstructing justice by trying to stop legal testimony as found in Article 1 of the Constitution is very much so-- just ask Tricky Dicky-- although one may have a hard time getting him to answer at this time.

You just contradicted yourself. First you say the smoking gun felony is in, then you say maybe, maybe not.

Make up your mind.

But, the reality is this. As commander in chief, he is perfectly legal in asking this to be done. He does not need to waite for the DOJ or CIA to ask it.

Its in the constitution!

"Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Get with the program

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just contradicted yourself. First you say the smoking gun felony is in, then you say maybe, maybe not.

Make up your mind.

But, the reality is this. As commander in chief, he is perfectly legal in asking this to be done. He does not need to waite for the DOJ or CIA to ask it.

Its in the constitution!

"Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Get with the program

No, just because Trump is the C in C that does not give him unlimited power. He still cannot ask for an illegal investigation of a.political opponent.

 

[metis]

You just contradicted yourself. First you say the smoking gun felony is in, then you say maybe, maybe not.

I did not contradict myself if you go back and actually read what I wrote.

But, the reality is this. As commander in chief, he is perfectly legal in asking this to be done.

Absolutely false.

"Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Of course, but I covered what I posted dealing with Article 1, so the above deflection is disingenuous.

Get with the program

Get with doing some studying and then try and increase your reading comprehension.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thats what i was refering to, yes. And so it is, the clause is refering to bribery, not appearence.

Of course, it's referring to both.

Lol, why would the USA create a treaty BEFORE trump came to office that goes against the constitution? Come on man

"Think a little"

And, no, that treaty dont go against the usa constitution.

It goes against YOUR constitution.

The treaty isn't about a President gaining personal political dirt on a political opponent. That is illegal according to the Constitution, regardless of any treaties.

Pardon me, but didn't you say a few pages back that you aren't even familiar with the Constitution? Or was that someone else?

Obviously, I'm not the only one who thinks that Trump has blatantly violated the Constitution. He's currently undergoing an impeachment inquiry for his actions. An impeachment inquiry which, by the way, has brought forth the testimony of several members of his OWN administration who also believe the phone call to be alarming and improper. That includes the guy who is the US Ambassador to the European Union (Sondland), who also happened to donate $1 million to Trump's campaign, so it's not like we're talking about people who are against Trump here. So no, it's not just me.

Yes, he mentioned the DNC server too.

And asking to look into biden is not illegal. Nor wrong, nor immoral. Its actually quite stupid to think its wrong to ask this.

Ask yourself this ... The Republicans were in control of the House and Senate for a whole two years, before the Democrats flipped the house in 2016.
How come in all that time, not a single one of them cared enough about the Biden situation back THEN, to open any sort of investigation into it whatsoever. It's only just now that they suddenly care so much. Could they be trying to deflect from the issue at hand, perhaps? Hmmmm

Withholding aid that has aleady been appropriated by Congress from a foreign government on the conditions that they provide dirt on one's political opponent and also announce publicly that they are investigating your political opponent is wrong. And it's especially wrong in the way that Trump tried to carry it out - using secret back channels and his own personal lawyer to extort information from a government who was in desperate need of the aid that Congress had already appropriated to them.

The US President has every available information agency in his own country available to him at any time. Trump could have asked them to investigate Biden. Instead, he extorted a foreign government into doing it instead. Maybe ask yourself why that is.

Yes, he as commander in cheif does have a right. Its in the constitution where he has a right to inforce laws.

"Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

What was he enforcing? That ukraine make sure its fighting corruption and investigating it. According to the treaty.

And he also wanted other countries to give aid.

Not sure how this addresses what I said.

Trump has every right to ask ukraine to investigate the bidens. There is no logical reason he cannot.

There are plenty of logical reasons he cannot. Already given by multiple posters. He doesn't have the right to withhold funds already appropriated by Congress for a specific purpose. Hence the reason, he was forced to release them - because he was being hounded by Congress members to do so.
Not to mention the impeachment inquiry currently underway.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess I have to ask again ...

Why do you think so many people in the White House were concerned enough about the call to report it to someone and then later testify to Congress about how their concern?

Still no answer to this one, eh?