No president has ever been caught doing this before, and Trump has been caught twice. It undermines the electoral process and I do not see how anyone can disagree with how detrimental it is.
Obama and Nixon both supported forms of election interference on the opposing party. Hillary de facto took over the DNC prior to the 2016 election and blocked out Bernie Sanders in her own party. And these are merely the most well known cases.
I'm not even going to engage you if all you're going to do is gaslight me.
Please provide evidence that any of my statements are false. I'll wait.
Apparently you don't know what "gaslighting" is but based on your followon demand, you are using it like every other liberal social media user and confuse gaslighting with demanding evidence to back up claims, which is the reverse of the actual burden of proof. So I'll help you out:
1. Asking a foreign country to investigate criminal activity related to American interests within their borders is not unprecedented. Going back to his campaign, Trump has repeatedly threatened ending of both federal and foreign aid contingent on the recipient entities complying in X domain. This is also standard behavior for all corporate bodies. Since "quid pro quo" in strict usage simply means an exchange, these are all "quid pro quo", and there's nothing wrong with that (when you go shopping and buy that christmas gift on Amazon, that's quid pro quo). In common law, it's used to indicate some issue with the exchange, such as a one-sided deal, or bribery. So then the question is, is something one sided here? Or more likely in this case, is it bribery?
2. Hunter Biden, who makes Trump look like a paragon as a family man, was on the board of a Ukrainian oil and gas company, while his father was involved in US directed Ukraine policy (no conflict of interest there clearly). This company, Burisma, was the target of a botched UK investigation into fraud/money laundering and embezzlement during the turmoil and conflict with Russia, and money laundering has been a problem in Ukraine for decades. Why shouldn't this be looked into (I would argue there are more important things to look at, like the Afghan papers, or any number of wikileaks, etc.)? If the argument is that "it might make Biden look bad", so what? It's no Steele dossier scandal, and that still hasn't been adjudicated. It's under the purview of the Executive Branch to direct the disbursement of foreign aid through the State Department, and as the head of the Executive branch under which the Justice Department and United States Intelligence Community falls, why wouldn't the president be able to act on questions of a foreign intelligence and legal nature? But anyway, lets look at the star witness:
3. The White House did not participate in the impeachment given the partisan conditions. McConnell is blocking/going to block witnesses. If you want to argue that is splitting hairs I'll give this one to you.
Biden is challenging Trump. Deny it all you want, it doesn't change anything. I don't want Biden as president, but he's no "demented pervert" (unlike our current president). Your personal distaste toward him doesn't change the fact that he's a contender--much like my personal distaste for Trump doesn't change the fact that he's a force to be reckoned with.
As far as the situation goes, you're correct--foreign aid isn't a right. And the US isn't obliged to provide aid; but the US president can't use that aid as leverage to better his chances in a political race.
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/2/18290345/joe-biden-lucy-flores-amy-lappos
It's not like I made up Biden being creepy, and he's not a challenger, even with the polling. You take him out of the race, those votes just go to another Dem candidate. A challenger is someone who can go toe-to-toe with Trump, not be the tallest midget on the Dem primary stage. You think he's going to beat Trump with performances like this:
He's running in the primaries on electibility (and sounding very tired and slurred doing it), and earlier in the debate he said he'd sacrifice blue collar jobs in the oil industry, real winning move. Hillary Clinton tried the same thing and we know how that turned out, and she was younger and less senile.
The proof is right there in the pudding, bud. I can’t make you see what you choose to ignore.
