(09-24-2019, 02:41 PM)B2hibry Wrote:

(09-24-2019, 02:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: This is an interesting oxymoron.
Corruption is a broad category.
You can't "specifically mention corruption" any more than you can describe America in a single photograph.
What you can do is specifically mention an instance of corruption.  And Trump chose to highlight something that would make one of his domestic political rivals look bad.
Would you have been ok with a President Hillary doing that? Or a President Jimmy Carter doing it?

What is that specific instance of corruption?

Quote from POTUS a few minutes ago:

"I am currently at the United Nations representing our Country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine. You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo! This is nothing more than a continuation of the Greatest and most Destructive Witch Hunt of all time!"

We already know that the money Congress wanted to give the Ukraine was being held up by POTUS.  Literally the exact situation described by Biden years earlier.
Either both situations are quid pro quo, or neither is.

The next question is one of motives.  Both Trump and Biden may have done what they did with pure motives, but it's highly unlikely Trump did, and only slightly less unlikely that Biden did.

Then the next question is of harm.  A prosecutor was harmed by what Biden did, and perhaps the Ukraine's justice system as a whole.  No Americans were harmed.  But Hunter Biden, an American who by all accounts did not break American laws, could have been harmed by what Trump did.

---