Kay Serrar wrote:
Trump denies (again) knowing Lev Parnas. Hands up who believes him. Anyone?
I'm sure in the bowels of the GOP strategery room they've got the sharpie out and are drawing the flowchart.
1) He didn't know him.
2) If he knew him, they just talked about charity and stuff.
3) If they talked about interests of the U.S. government, it was all standard. Nothing campaign-related for sure.
4) If they talked about campaign-related stuff, there was no "quid pro quo."
5).If there was a quid pro quo discussed, it's OK, because nothing actually happened - was just fun talk.
6) OK, if a transaction actually took place, it's kinda standard (list historical examples), and was signed off on by the State Dept, etc. Everyone knew it was going on, typical stuff. Get over it.
7) OK, it it was never really signed off on and not really considered normal by paragons of ethics like Michael Bolton, it doesn't matter because it's not a crime. He's the President, folks. Might be unsavory, but this is the Get Things Done style we voted for! Get over the 2016 election, you lost.
8) If you want to argue it was a crime, doesn't even matter, can't bring charges while in office.
9) Also you can't convict on impeachment if there was no crime. See #8.