GRtak
Forum Addict
But all perfectly legal.
Looks bad but legal, versus outright corruption.
I was not implying either, just that there is a proper agency to go through.
But all perfectly legal.
Looks bad but legal, versus outright corruption.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/giuliani-shokin-state-visa-george-kent/index.htmlGiuliani pushed Trump administration to grant a visa to a Ukrainian official promising dirt on Democrats
Giuliani requested a visa for former Ukrainian prosecutor-general Viktor Shokin to travel to the United States. Shokin had been pushed out of his position as Ukraine's top prosecutor in 2016 after pressure from Western leaders, including Biden, over concerns that he was not pursuing corruption cases.
Giuliani has previously told CNN he wanted to interview Shokin in person because the Ukrainian promised to reveal dirt on Democrats.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...i-s-help-oligarch-s-allies-pursued-biden-dirtTo Win Giuliani’s Help, Oligarch’s Allies Pursued Biden Dirt
Dmitry Firtash, charged with conspiracy by the U.S. and living in Vienna, shuffled lawyers in July to add Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing,
- Associates of Ukraine’s Firtash procured witness statement
- U.S. law forbids foreign assistance in political campaigns
DiGenova and Toensing have billed Firtash about $1 million for their work, one of the people said. That includes costs for Lev Parnas, a Giuliani associate
So you want him to continue with every decision he makes even if it's objectively a bad one?No, I don't. I was pointing out that our president made a snap decision, and had to reverse it because he got called on his B.S..
So you want him to continue with every decision he makes even if it's objectively a bad one?
So if he follows through on something you are against he is a terrible president and abusing his power. If he doesn’t follow through because of external pressure he is a flip flop and a terrible president.He was called on this when he was merely considering that location. He ignored that it was clearly going to be in violation of the Emoluments Clause.
He has already violated it several times, so why change where it is going to be? He flip flops on issues all the time. This is part of why he is the worst president ever.
You do see how this is an unwinnable scenario right?
So if he follows through on something you are against he is a terrible president and abusing his power. If he doesn’t follow through because of external pressure he is a flip flop and a terrible president.
You do see how this is an unwinnable scenario right?
I never said he was a great president, but I do have to mention that how good/bad president was is usually judged after their term ends, if only because some policies take time to really kick in so to speak.Three years in the Office and he still makes these massive blunders.
Is what he has done so far enough to judge him a terrible US President, or does the benefit of the doubt depends on how much people want something to be true and extends indefinitely for the right people?
I ask because I worked in places where 10 lost euro could get you a severe warning and a bad word could get you out of the job at the end of the contract, while this man makes massive, costly mistakes in a high-responsibility job and people are still sweetly apologetic...
It's incredible how double a standard can be.
I never said he was a great president, but I do have to mention that how good/bad president was is usually judged after their term ends, if only because some policies take time to really kick in so to speak.
It all depends on what level you are in the company, if you are high up enough or valued enough you ain’t getting fired for dumb shit. Also this is government we are talking about, it’s always been a shit show, Trump’s version of it is just more public.This is exactly the double standard I was talking about, and it really shows in the difference between him and other people: you could get fired for less than what he has done multiple times,
It's addressing his motivation. Trump is still running his business from the White House and using his position to enrich himself, either directly or indirectly. He didn't care about public sentiment regarding hosting the G7 at his resort - it was only when Congress passed the THUG Act to prevent any government money being spent there that Trump reversed his decision. It was always about making money, nothing else.So you want him to continue with every decision he makes even if it's objectively a bad one?
Same as every other politician ever really.It was always about making money, nothing else.
So the checks and balances are working then?when Congress passed the THUG Act to prevent any government money being spent there that Trump reversed his decision.