The problem with your analysis, jaxboy, is you fail to give your own dim-retard party proper credit and recognition for leading this race to the bottom.
Anyone who spends any time in a sewer searching for sewer rats can't help encountering the Clinton Crime Family. They're the TRAILBLAZERS when it comes to inviting foreign governments to interfere in our elections to help their own political campaigns. Witness how the Clintons in 2016 enlisted Russian intel agents to make up a dossier full of lies smearing Donald Trump. Or how the DNC encouraged Ukraine to release the so-called Black Ledger that got Paul Manafort fired as Trump's campaign manager.
But when trumpy says "hmmm... maybe what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and sends a fine American patriot named Rudy Giuliani out to expose how dim-retards abuse political office to enrich their families, all they can do is feign outrage and scream "Impeach!"
Originally Posted by lustylad
I've seen people post the famous "if you
pay for oppo research from Russians delivered by a foreign national like Hillary did with the dossier", that is perfectly OK but if you "ask for it" as they suggest Trump did, that is illegal but I was stunned to hear a House Manager make that same statement tonight. He actually said it with a straight face. I though maybe he would be to embarrassed to say such a thing but he did and he got as far a way from the dossier as fast as he could.
FWI the law says you may not
solicit information ( something of value ) and you are unlikely to pay for something you did not solicit. Now, I would be perfectly fine with saying Trump did exactly that if the Dems would admit that is exactly what Hillary did and they didn't care. But I would also make the case that if a President does it as part of his duty to insure before he gives a country millions of dollars, they have adequately investigated corruption even if that investigation leads to a political opponent who gets no deference because they happen to be running for President, it is perfectly legal.
A candidate, Hillary, soliciting information from Russia through a foreign national to be used against her opponent, no.
A President with a mandate to investigate corruption before he hands over millions of dollars and his political opponent just happens to be the subject of that investigation with known ties to the corrupt company in question, yes.
