DiscussMormonism.com

Moksha posted this but I think it deserves its own thread.

When Trump took office January 2017, the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko paid a Washington lobbying firm BGR Group to get better contacts with the White House but this happened with zero success.

Then suddenly, in June the door opened. Why? Well on June 7th Giuliani met with Poroshenko and Yuriy Lutsenko who was the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Within a couple of days of that meeting the ongoing Ukraine investigation of Paul Manafort was abruptly dropped!!

If this were a Democrat administration and Obama had an investigation against his campaign manager dropped after sending his personal attorney to meet with the prosecutor could you imagine the hysteria that would have ensued from the Right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln6mPaK ... C1qaOT05m0

When real scandals, which would throw the Republicans of yesteryear into hysterics, erupt on a daily basis it is hard to notice all of them.

When historians piece together the story of Trump, this will be listed as the first illegal quid pro quo made by the Trump administration with the Ukrainian government.

When there is once again a Democratic President, Republicans will regain their capacity to aggrandize events into make-believe scandals and show hysterical reactions.

It is indeed remarkable and sad how hypocritically Republicans defend the most outrageous actions and scandals concerning Trump, considering their past hysterical condemnation of much lesser or even merely unjustly perceived offenses committed by Democrats. Democrats, on the other hand, are nearly as likely to condemn and censure their own who misbehave as they are to point out Republican malfeasance.

Republicans are coming to the realization that they can no longer credibly deny the reality of the quid pro quo, so now the only alternatives left for them are to either somehow deny that it was illegal or claim that it doesn't matter if the President commits a crime. The problem with that is: if there were nothing wrong with the quid pro quo, why did they initially try so hard to argue that there was no quid pro quo in the first place? Why the obvious and blatant moving of the goal post?

Gunnar wrote:The problem with that is: if there were nothing wrong with the quid pro quo, why did they initially try so hard to argue that there was no quid pro quo in the first place? Why the obvious and blatant moving of the goal post?

Republicans do not care for the internal consistency of ethical behavior. They like to do whatever seems expedient or profitable at that moment.

moksha wrote:

Gunnar wrote:The problem with that is: if there were nothing wrong with the quid pro quo, why did they initially try so hard to argue that there was no quid pro quo in the first place? Why the obvious and blatant moving of the goal post?

Republicans do not care for the internal consistency of ethical behavior. They like to do whatever seems expedient or profitable at that moment.

Apparently so.

I suppose Democrats were banking on Russian collusion allegations being able to overturn the 2016 election results in 2017.

ajax18 wrote:I suppose Democrats were banking on Russian collusion allegations being able to overturn the 2016 election results in 2017.

Are Rush and Hannity still going on about 'overturning the 2016 election results' over the radio??? Were House Republicans trying to overturn the 1996 election results when they impeached Bill Clinton back in December of 1998??? Unlike Trump in 2016, Clinton won the popular vote back in 1996. And Clinton also got 75 more Electoral votes back in 1996 than what Trump got in 2016.