slug.com slug.com

0 0

Question: "President Trump's action to tell the Ukrainian government that if they want U.S. funds they need to stop corrupt processes and mechanisms: is that illegal by the letter of the law, open to interpretation of the law, a negative thing to do?, or a the right thing to do?" Another question: "Do you want your money going to fund a government that is not doing anything about the corrupt processes and mechanisms that are historically part of it?" Another question: "Can the law be interpreted in such a way that it becomes destructive to doing what is good or functional for good?" I do not care at all if the president used a quid pro quo with the Ukranian president for the purpose of supporting his, the Ukrainian president's campaign promises and goals to stop corruption in the Ukraine. I do not think that he did use a quid pro quo in the colloquial way that that phrase is being bantered about. By definition, in the colloquial sense that it is being used, it would be narrowly defined as a sign of extortion, but when the president of the other country runs on a campaign promise of clearing out corruption, any action that would support that activity would be hard-pressed to fit under the categorical title of extortion. Anyway, that is the way I see it. Please let me know how you see it. #President Trump #Framing the discussion for accuracy #Impeachment #Government #Leftist goals #D'nesh D'Souza

Chris57K 5 Nov 6
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:57745