I don't have time to explain at the moment, but the difference between this Clinton example and what President Trump did is so glaringly obvious that if Tucker Carlson HAD any capacity for shame, his face would be permanently stained red. [ANOTHER CLUE OF HOW OFF-TOPIC THIS EXAMPLE IS: No one on the right (or left) ever complained or criticized Clinton's conversation with Blair. Why not? Because there's nothing wrong with what he did, and in this conversation he did NOTHING like Trump did in his call with the Ukrainian president. My goodness. It's there on the page, in black-and-white.]
Well ... Obama even flew to UK to campaign rather blatantly for a certain side in the Brexit election.
You raise yet another example of presidential conduct that is IN NO WAY analogous to either the objective or the execution of President Trump's call to the Ukrainian president.
In case it's not clear: President Trump asked a foreign leader to investigate - aka, dig up dirt on - a domestic political rival, one who might run against the president in 2020. That's NOT what President Clinton did in the instance @reformed cited, nor is it what President Obama did in the instance you cite, Wolfgang. If you want an analogous incident, provide a link to an occasion when an American president requested a foreign nation's help against a domestic political rival (and Donald Trump's "Russia, if you're listening...." from 2016 doesn't count!)
No one complained because there is nothing wrong with he did. NOTHING Trump did was wrong either. Double Standard.
No it is not clear because that is not what happened. He did not ask to dig up dirt. He asked to look into corruption. Nothing wrong with that.
I look forward to your one to three sentence evasion of these examples of obviously questionable conduct.
The protection is a red herring.
A hearsay whistleblower that gave information that was different than the actual transcript.
We do not have the full context of those sms messages.
There was no point in him testifying, we already know what happened.
Nothing they did made it look like something was wrong. You are just savagely and rabidly biased.
It's your six word reply that's the red herring here.
Why would they move quickly to secrete a conversation that clearly had NO code word classified content? You and I both know there's only ONE reason: To hide it from wider distribution or review because its content, while nothing close to code word classified, contained seriously controversial - to be kind - and highly inappropriate, if not illegal - to be more accurate - presidential conduct.
You've cited of "information that was different from the actual transcript," that the complaint says Trump "pressured" Zelenenskyy, when, you believe, Trump didn't presssure the Ukrainian president. One example... which in my and most observers' views, is clearly not an example of a whistlblower's mistake... which in my view clearly means you seem to concede the rest of the complaint is accurate. How did the whistleblower get SO MUCH of the detail correct?
If accuracy is a problem with the whistleblower's account, why is SO MUCH of what he wrote accurate, and only one word (if that) inaccurate?
How could the "full context" of the phrases "call me" and "let's stop texting about Ukraine" change what appears to be their obvious meaning?
And then there's this: If you don't think we have "the full context of those sms messages," why do you say there's "no point" in Sondland's testifying? Couldn't Sonland give at least more of "the full context of those sms messages"?
Except that you say we "do not have the full context" of Sonland's sms messages, which means you think we DON'T know everything that happened.
Personal attacks don't change facts.
It's a red herring because they released it blowing up your narrative.
They released it because the call had become public knowledge AND because, foolishly, they thought the transcript would exonerate the president. The basic "narrative" of the whistleblower's account was that the president of the United States by phone had asked a foreign leader to investigate two of the president's domestic political rivals. NOTHING about that narrative blew up when they released the transcript; in fact, the transcript confirmed it. The only thing that blew up was the White House's absurd notion that the transcript would lead to exoneration.
Again, the Whistleblower distorted the account of what actually happened AND it was hearsay to begin with. Nothing to see here. The parts he got right don't even raise a red flag.
You've cited the whistleblower's claim that the president "pressured" Zelenskyy as one example of the complaint's "distortion." The fact that the word "pressured" in the complaint is the whistleblower's opinion of the intention and/or result of the president's words to Zelenskyy AND NOT an assertion of objective fact notwithstanding, identify ANOTHER component of the complaint that "distorted the account of what actually happened." And while you're at it, respond to the question I posed last time: If accuracy and hearsay are such problems with the whistleblower's account, why is SO MUCH of what he wrote accurate, save for, at least in your view as presented to-date, the one word "pressured"?
Nothing has obvious meaning without full context.
And so I ask you the next question from my last post that you evaded: If you don't think we have "the full context of those sms messages," why do you say there's "no point" in Sondland's testifying? Couldn't Sonland give at least more of "the full context of those sms messages"?
The parts he got right don't even raise a red flag.
Among the many things "he got right" was the fact that the president of the United States asked a foreign leader to investigate domestic political rivals. Especially in the aftermath of Russia's systematic intrusion into our 2016 election, what "he got right" is a red flag factory.
Two political rivals? Who is the other? That being said, the president asked them to look into corruption. If it didn't happen, what does it matter? If it did, the world should know about it. Fair?
The Whistleblower had an opinion of pressure on a call that he was not a witness to. That is a problem. It's hearsay and, according to the transcript, it was wrong. That's the big thing. There was no quid pro quo in that call whatsoever which is what the complaint is about. That's what the impeachment inquiry is about. It didn't happen on that call. Does not exist.
It's not a red flag. If there was corruption, I want to know about it to.
But surely you don't have a problem with the fact that it is a political rival do you? I mean really? The Russia investigation, you had no problem with that and it's another variation of the same type of thing according to the way you paint it. Political power being used to investigate a political opponent. Liberal/Democrat double standards. Gotta love em.
Two political rivals? Who is the other?
Hillary Clinton. The president clings to a conspiracy theory that because the Clinton campaign asked Crowdstrike to investigate the email hacking, and as a result, the server ended up in Ukraine.
That being said, the president asked them to look into corruption. If it didn't happen, what does it matter? If it did, the world should know about it. Fair?
The "corruption" meme is a baseless trumpster talking point.
Revisit the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelenskyy. Quote for me all the sentences in which the president uses ANY form of the word "corruption." (HINT: There are none.) Then quote for me all the sentences in which the president makes clear that the purpose of his call is to ask Zelenskyy to investigate corruption as an endemic condition in Ukraine. (HINT: There are none.) Finally, quote for me all the sentences in which the president makes clear that the purpose of his call is simply to ask Zelenskyy to investigate the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory and Joe/Hunter Biden. (HINT: Get ready to do a lot of copying & pasting.)
Here you repeat your disagreement with the Whistleblower's opinion of the president's intentions during the phone call. You do NOT question ANY assertion of fact contained in his complaint. You're entitled to your view of the president's intentions, as is the whistleblower, as are the members of the House who will eventually vote on articles of impeachment. But your claim was "the Whistleblower distorted the account of what actually happened." Other than your dispute with his opinion of the president's intention, you have yet to show ANY distortion in the whistleblower's "account of what actually happened." Am I correct to conclude that when you claimed the whistleblower "distorted the account of what actually happened," you referred SOLELY to his opinion that the president "pressured" Zelenskyy? If so, your claim reduces to "We can't trust ANY part of the whistleblower's complaint because he disagrees with me as to whether Trump "pressured" Zelenskyy!" Not a strong case.
Of ALL the corruption running rampant in Ukraine, Trump asked Zelenskyy only about Joe Biden and the DNC's email server - both of domestic political interest. Surely a coincidence. I'm sure Biden's name came to Trump on the spur of the moment, as he was talking to Zelenskyy! Why, when he got on the phone, I bet he intended only to congratulate Zelenskyy on his election victory!
Do you suppose we could get Ukraine to investigate the Trump administration's many emoluments clause violations? After all, if there were emoluments clause violations, you'd want to know, wouldn't you?
But surely you don't have a problem with the fact that it is a political rival do you? I mean really? The Russia investigation, you had no problem with that and it's another variation of the same type of thing according to the way you paint it. Political power being used to investigate a political opponent.
Yep. No difference there!
Glad you see there is no difference from what you guys are whining about.
As I have told you before, if you want others to comment on the substance of your posts, you have create posts that have substance. This one doesn't.
That is, there is nothing to your response here aside from some ungrammatical word salad ("there is no difference from..."???) As you would say, try again.
No, I just don't feel like dealing with your liberal spin machine. It's exhausting and I don't live in Alice in Wonderland.
And you respond to a call for substance in your posts with yet another brief, insubstantial, and inconsequential word collection, one that serves the dual role of evading the facts of this case. (In that regard, I grant, your posts emulate the president's communication strategy in that he spends most of his time attacking and mocking those with whom he disagrees, and very little time addressing the facts of the matters those who disagree with him assert.)
It remains a relevant and reliable predictor of your posts in our exchanges in threads, reformed: When you can't attack the message - which is most of the time in our political discussions because, as in this thread, the facts are rarely on your side - you attack the messenger.
Not evading facts. Evading your liberal bias spin machine.
Oh I have attacked the message but you sputter the same crap over and over and it doesn't make it anymore real. I've read the transcript. There is no quid pro quo in that transcript. There is no pressuring in that transcript. There is no wrong-doing in that transcript. It's nonsense.