(09-24-2019, 04:07 PM)jagibelieve 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?

Care to cite a credible source that shows that?  I mean other than an unnamed whistle-blower that wasn't privy to the phone conversation?

(09-24-2019, 03:14 PM)mikesez Wrote: 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.

1.  The money was being held back yes, but it was paid out.  The reasoning for holding money back was to get other nations, specifically EU nations to also contribute.  It had nothing to do with "blackmail".  The two are not the same.

2.  The "highly unlikely" motive thing is opinion and speculation.  There is no credible evidence to support your claim.

3.  That situation is the problem of the left, more specifically Joe Biden.  What Joe Biden allegedly did was far more serious than what President Trump allegedly did.