Is it that Trump didn't do it? Or that even if he did, it's no big deal?

[darb72]

Oh.

Well: bullshit.

It's true.

[boller4president]

There is no evidence that Trump demanded a quid pro quo. All the democrats hopes are based on presumptions.

The quid pro quo is a separate argument.

Trump should not have mentioned the Bidens by name to a foreign head of state he should have mentioned Burisma and restarting old investigations closed by previous corrupt prosecutors but he just can't help himself.

[SpaceCityRaven]

The quid pro quo is a separate argument.

Trump should not have mentioned the Bidens by name to a foreign head of state he should have mentioned Burisma and restarting old investigations closed by previous corrupt prosecutors but he just can't help himself.

A common theme during his tenure.

[DitkasSausage]

Trying again! My first attempt at asking this was, uh, not fully thought out.

I'm trying to understand which position Trump supporters have on the central allegation(s) underlying the impeachment inquiry. The allegation is that:

Contrary to official US foreign policy, Trump held up military aid to Ukraine, an ally – aid which was approved by Congress, for military support to help Ukraine defend against Russian aggression: arms & ammo, maritime security, NATO coordination, etc – on condition of them announcing action against a political rival of Trump's, for Trump's personal political benefit. This constitutes an abuse of power: possibly it constitues solicitation of a bribe. (in-kind, not cash)
He attempted to keep these actions under the radar by operating outside "official" channels, eg by having his personal attorney coordinate them.

My understanding is that someone who thinks Trump should not be impeached, must think:

Either
The actions that the Dems allege to Trump's part would be disturbing & problematic; but they haven't produced the evidence.
Or
Even if the Dems "prove" their version of what happened, it still wouldn't amount to misconduct by Trump. Just standard operation of foreign policy in the real world.

Right? I would think that a Trump supporter would believe that one of those things has to be true.


(I do understant that in either scenario, a Trump supporter could potentially think other things are ALSO true. Like if "B" above, then a Trump supporter could also think that the Dems know it wouldn't be misconduct, they are just cynically generating a smearing news cycle. And so forth: plenty of possible co-incident things with either of those two stances. But my main curiousity is the core view of the impeachment allegation.)


I've tried to design a poll where the choices are mutually exclusive – addressing a weakness of my first thread.

● Do the Trump supporters on this forum think think that the alleged actions would legitimately be problematic, perhaps rising to the level of misconduct; but the evidence is weak / flimsy / unconvincing / contradictory / etc?
● Or do the Trump supporters think the alleged actions are no big deal? Holding up approved aid to an ally in exchange for that foreign govt acting to damage a political rival, is not really an abuse of power? It's well within the executive's discretion: an example of the normal push-pull of foreign policy?

Not asking anyone to choose a radio button and shut up: would like to hear the nuance around any vote. It's a thread. Oh, and the poll also includes some additional options, for people who aren't Trump supporters but would like to play along.

Not getting into semantics but I'd agree with your two reasons why not to impeach. I voted for the whole, "Even if they prove it..." That was the closest to my belief, and I think you did a good job on this poll.
My only disagreement is that I don't think the Democrats even think it is impeachable because, even if he did the worst case scenario of what they are saying.... both the DNC and GOP have been conducting themselves like that for decades. I'm not certain why were all supposed to get our panties in an uproar if the claims against Trump were even fully true. Hillary's lawyer (let's be honest, at her direction...) paid a british intel agent to get information from Russia about Trump. Our own FBI and CIA were investigating his foreign dealings during the election... and there is a VERY good chance Obama knew... as were finding out more and more today. Obama had his IRS head start auditing and shutting down Conservative PACs so the GOP would get less funding. Do you really believe Louis Lerner did nothing wrong, and pleaded the fifth??? come now... let's get real here. So my point is that even if Trump did do what they are saying... that would make it about almost as bad as the last few decades of what our politicians have been doing repeatedly? Hell! John Kerry isn't even an employee of the government and conducted government business in Ukraine and Iran... two hotbed spots. What the hell is all of that about???

[darb72]

The quid pro quo is a separate argument.

Trump should not have mentioned the Bidens by name to a foreign head of state he should have mentioned Burisma and restarting old investigations closed by previous corrupt prosecutors but he just can't help himself.

It's Biden specifically who needs to be investigated. Any other candidate and this is a different conversation in my opinion, but given we know for a fact that the Bidens were involved in the Ukrainian scandal while Joe was VP means I support Trump or any other government official doing what they can to force the Ukraine to investigate. Especially since Joe Biden is on tape bragging how he got the prosecutor fired.