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

[Jollybear]

Of course, it's referring to both.

No....its not refering to both. Thats only your opinion. A false opinion at that.

You cant punish appearences of evil otherwise you dive into a slippery slope of punishing every action and things get incredably nitpicky.

Punish evil itself, not appearences.

You know trump can still accept a bribe from a foreign leader OUTSIDE his hotel?

In otherwords, the evil itself is what needs to be focused on and punished. Not innocent, nitpicky BS.

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.

The constitution does NOT say the president cannot have a political opponent investigated, particularly if that person is suspected of corruption. Political opponent or not, they are not immune from investigation.

Hell, even CNN admits that a political opponent can be investigated IF the motive is to stump out corruption.
The case for and against impeaching President Donald Trump

Pardon me,

Your not pardoned.

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

That CERTAINLY was NOT me. And im not aware of who it was, nor do i care to flib back and look to find out who it was. I just know it was not me.

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.

I dont care how many people think his phone call was wrong. They are all wrong and so are you.

But, the numbers are not all on your side. Many agree trump didnt do wrong.

Also sondland changed his testimony. So, hes not reliable.

Also taylor hasnt nailed trump. I seen key sections of his transcript exonerating trump.

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

Its the other way around. Why isnt the democrats care about the biden issue when its obviously a quid pro qoe. They dont care about double standards.

Also biden was being investigated BEFORE he was a candidate

https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/a...onth=10&date=06&id=935848&oref=duckduckgo.com

Put that in your pipe and smoke it pale. Now whatcha got to say for yourself?

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.

No, its not wrong. Absolutely NONE of that is wrong. Plus, taylors testimony says ukraine asked to talk to guilani. Found that out yesterday.

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.

Your not very intelligent. Look....heres how foreign relations work, they work like all relations work, by working with the other. Trump has a right to ask a foreign leader to investigate potential corruption that happened in his country. His investigaters work with theres. Its in the treaty contract i even showed you, which you conveniently blatently ignore. And you ignore it because you WANT TRUMP to be guilty. And why? Because you just simply dont like his personality and his hair. Too bad, its his hair, his mouth and he can wear it and talk it the way he wants to. Mayby your just jealous.

Not sure how this addresses what I said.

No, THATS WHAT YOU need to address. Ill repeat.

"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."

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.

Yes, he does have a right.

Constitution article 2 section 1 and 2 says

"Clause 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

"Clause 2. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Plus, dont forget the treaty contract i gave you in former posts and the section on the constitution that says the president has power to inforce laws.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No....its not refering to both. Thats only your opinion. A false opinion at that.

Of course it refers to both. How could it not?

You cant punish appearences of evil otherwise you dive into a slippery slope of punishing every action and things get incredably nitpicky.
Punish evil itself, not appearences.

What you can do, and what was done by the friggin Founding Fathers was to create rules to help completely avoid the appearance of impropriety and actual impropriety.

You know trump can still accept a bribe from a foreign leader OUTSIDE his hotel?

In other words, the evil itself is what needs to be focused on and punished. Not innocent, nitpicky BS.

Of course. That would be illegal as well.

The point that you seem to keep missing is that it’s a lot easier to accept bribes and gifts from people who are staying directly in your own hotel, which itself can be viewed as a bribe or gift. This is why Presidents are supposed to divest themselves from their businesses upon taking office. Like Jimmy Carter did, for example. What is it that you don’t grasp about this?

The constitution does NOT say the president cannot have a political opponent investigated, particularly if that person is suspected of corruption. Political opponent or not, they are not immune from investigation.

You keep ignoring the part where Trump held up Congressionally appropriated funds to pressure the desperate Ukrainian government to bend to his will and do his personal business for him. Personal business which had nothing to do with the security or interest of the country. Rather, it was to satisfy his own personal interests.

Ask yourself how does the President of Ukraine being forced to announce publicly that Ukraine is investigating Joe Biden and his son, serve to protect the interests and security of the United States? Again, I will point out (and you will ignore) the fact that Colonel Vindman, Director for European Affairs for the United States National Security Council, testified that Trump’s actions in the Ukraine UNDERMINDED the national security of the United States. Go ahead and ignore that one again.

Hell, even CNN admits that a political opponent can be investigated IF the motive is to stump out corruption.
The case for and against impeaching President Donald Trump

We now know what the motive was, thanks to the testimony of multiple government officials that have testified. Have you not noticed that all of their stories corroborate each other as well as the Whistleblower’s report? And the one guy who’s story initially did not fit with the rest (Sondland), has since amended his testimony so that it does match all other testimony that’s been presented. What say you about that?

Your not pardoned.

Well that’s rude.

Also, it's "you're." But you're so much more intelligent than I am, so you already knew that, right?

That CERTAINLY was NOT me. And im not aware of who it was, nor do i care to flib back and look to find out who it was. I just know it was not me.

I’ll have to take your word for it then.

I dont care how many people think his phone call was wrong. They are all wrong and so are you.

So you’re just going to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend everything is fine?

Your opinion definitely outweighs that of the Ambassador to the European Union (Gordon Sondland), the Director for European Affairs for the National Security Council (Colonel Vindman), the Ambassador of the US to the Ukraine (Bill Taylor, Marie Yovanovich), etc., most of whom have worked in government for years, under multiple administrations. For sure, your opinion is much more valid than theirs.

That’s not to mention the fact that Trump and Guiliani have both stated on television multiple times that they did exactly what they are accused of doing.

But, the numbers are not all on your side. Many agree trump didnt do wrong.

Nobody who was in the know thinks that Trump did the right thing. There were alarm bells going off by multiple people all throughout the many months that this went on.

Well, you might, but you appear to be impervious to facts.

Also sondland changed his testimony. So, hes not reliable.

His original testimony was not reliable, as it contradicted all other testimony. Now it directly lines up with all of it. So again, you’re ignoring the substance.

Also taylor hasnt nailed trump. I seen key sections of his transcript exonerating trump.

Such as?

Does Taylor’s testimony line up with all other witnesses, or not? Hmmmmm ….

Its the other way around. Why isnt the democrats care about the biden issue when its obviously a quid pro qoe. They dont care about double standards.

No, it’s not the other way around. How could it be? I’d like you to address my actual point.

Cont'd ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Also biden was being investigated BEFORE he was a candidate
https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/a...onth=10&date=06&id=935848&oref=duckduckgo.com

Put that in your pipe and smoke it pale. Now whatcha got to say for yourself?

Yes, I’m aware. Everyone is. So tell me, while I’m smoking my pipe, how come he’s never been fined or charged with anything? What was the outcome of that investigation? Do tell, please.

Also, you didn’t answer my question …

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

No, its not wrong. Absolutely NONE of that is wrong. Plus, taylors testimony says ukraine asked to talk to guilani. Found that out yesterday.

Uh yeah, because Trump told him in the phone call to speak with Guiliani, who again I guess I need to remind you is the President’s personal lawyer and doesn’t hold any position or authority in government whatsoever where he should be negotiating anything on behalf of the United States. Trump is not the United States. That’s just another point you keep ignoring.

Your not very intelligent. Look....heres how foreign relations work, they work like all relations work, by working with the other. Trump has a right to ask a foreign leader to investigate potential corruption that happened in his country. His investigaters work with theres. Its in the treaty contract i even showed you, which you conveniently blatently ignore. And you ignore it because you WANT TRUMP to be guilty. And why? Because you just simply dont like his personality and his hair. Too bad, its his hair, his mouth and he can wear it and talk it the way he wants to. Mayby your just jealous.

Oops, you’re being rude again. I guess I’ve hit a nerve with these facts here …

This is just a repeat of your same old line, without any adjustment in light of the facts at hand. At every turn, you have to ignore the fact that multiple people in Trump’s OWN administration are testifying over and over that they were alarmed with Trump’s (and Guiliani’s) actions during the phone call and after the phone call, over a period of months and months and that there was great discussion about it among many administration officials that is, just now, coming to light. One of those people contributed one million dollars to Trump’s campaign, so it’s not like they just didn’t like the guy or his hair or whatever you’re going on about. Why were they all so alarmed if Trump has done absolutely nothing wrong? You can’t just brush these people off, as you seem to want to do.

No, THATS WHAT YOU need to address. Ill repeat.

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

He’s not the king. He doesn’t get to withhold money that Congress had appropriated for a specific (emergency) purpose in order to have his personal desires be fulfilled by a foreign leader. Think about this for a moment … we’re talking about a country who desperately needed military aid in order to save lives, that Congress already voted on and appropriated for them, being made to jump through hoops to satisfy Trump’s personal whims.

"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.

If Trump really cares this much about corruption in the Ukraine, then maybe we should be asking him why he cut funding to the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, which was already working to support the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s office, before their budget was cut.

Or we should ask him why, if he cared so much about corruption in the Ukraine, he didn’t ask any one of the many agencies available to him within the US to carry out the investigation. He literally has every single government intelligence agency at his fingertips. But nope, didn’t ask them to do it.

Also ask yourself, how do the requests that Trump kept making do anything to further the security or interests of the United States? Trump works for the United States, not for himself.

And he also wanted other countries to give aid."

Had he done even the smallest amount of research, Trump would have known that other countries already give aid to Ukraine.

Canada’s engagement in Ukraine
Trump Wrong on European Aid to Ukraine
Fact-checking Trump's false claim that US is the only country providing aid to Ukraine - CNNPolitics

Yes, he does have a right.

Constitution article 2 section 1 and 2 says
....
Plus, dont forget the treaty contract i gave you in former posts and the section on the constitution that says the president has power to inforce laws.

Trump doesn’t get to use the treaty with Ukraine to investigate his political rivals in order to sway an election. He doesn’t get to use the treaty to hold back Congressionally appropriated military aid based on his personal whims either.

Where in the wording that you’ve provided does it say that Trump has the right to do any of that?

You’re basically just arguing that Trump can just do whatever the hell he wants. That is not the case.

I think you should read the treaty in it’s entirety. It outlines some very specific actions, records, and steps that are supposed to be taken when investigations are requested. The Trump administration apparently didn’t follow any of them, as far as I can tell. Instead they did it all secretly, via back door channels, conspiracy theories, and non-governmental actors. If this was all on the up and up, why did they feel the need to do that? Hmmmmm …