(01-31-2020, 06:43 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:

(01-31-2020, 06:10 PM)mikesez Wrote: for the sake of argument let's agree that Biden committed a quid pro quo for money. 
I contend that Trump committed a quid pro quo to get a negative story about Biden in the news and influence this year's election.
As voters, which type of quid pro quo should we be more concerned about? Guys looking to skim a little bit of foreign money on the side, or guys looking to get those foreign governments to tip the scales in the election?

---

Nancy Pelosi is our speaker of the house. There's only one and she's both of ours.
But I'm a registered Republican.
I have no idea why she delayed the articles.
Speculating, she either thought she could win a few news cycles and persuade a few senators, or she just wanted to give the managers more time to rehearse their speeches.

You don't get it.

A "negative story about Joe Biden" in the news"?  Really?  Telling the truth and it getting into the news is a "quid-pro-quo"?  You my liberal democrat friend have gone off the deep end.  You might want to run along and meet up with the other 6 or 7 Bernie or Warren supporters at their next rally.

If it was just a negative story, I wouldn't be worried.
As I already said, there is no evidence Joe or Hunter committed a crime as defined in US statutes. Accepting a job that you're not qualified for is not a crime.  Maybe it should be a crime. Withholding funds to influence a foreign government, even for personal benefit, is merely abuse of power. Maybe Joe should have been impeached in 2015. But by 2017 and later, he is out of office, and there's nothing for a government official to discuss. 

This is what I want you to understand. Starting in July of 2019, Trump could have made Joe Biden and Ukraine a topic of every stump speech. He could have his press secretary or anyone else he wants to hire in an informal role with his own money go on TV and talk about Joe Biden and Ukraine. Talk about how suspicious it is and how unethical it seems to be. None of that would have invoked any of the powers that are unique to his role as president. So none of that would have been an abuse of power. 

he could have gotten Joe Biden and Ukraine into the news just as much as it is right now, without abusing his power.

But he didn't. Why not?

---