You're comparing Trump's words to someone who orders another to take a gun and shoot someone?
Yes, I am. If you need the analogy explained to you in more detail, I would be happy to oblige if you ask.
And you wonder why many question your side's way of reasoning as beyond extreme?
Actually, I don't wonder it at all. "Many" will think whatever their leader wants them to think.
Case in point:
Yes, a GOP Rep. just said Trump has the right to solicit foreign interference in our elections!
Even with this you're assuming the worst of another. Why not the possibility that he'd sure not hope the gentlemen and his son truly weren't engaged in questionable dealings?
Because a man who lashes out at sixteen year old girls via Twitter for no other reason than pettiness and envy (only to be soundly clapped back),
A man who threatens to release what
he refers to as "threats to National Security" in the cities of his political enemies purely out of spite,
A man who encourages his followers to engage in violent thuggish behavior against his critics, and publicly mocks them when they do not,
A man who makes a habit of insulting and derogatory nicknames for his perceived enemies (an ever-growing list), only to be sent scurrying away from a NATO conference when the world sees he can't take a little criticism...
... Is not a man for whom altruistic and/or magnanimous behavior should be assumed.
you can assume so, or course -- as the "gentleman" is so fond of saying to his would-be followers, "you have no choice."
Not everyone has motives that when they investigate that they want to find something wrong....
We're not talking about "everyone." We're talking about a man who showed his true colors a long time ago and continues to do so... While his followers cheer.
But the question is that a great many have is how can it possibly be considered not questionable to have a son of a Vice President be sitting on a board with no experience in the field and have the Vice President the point man to be talking policy to that country.
Two sons, a daughter, and a son-in-law, actually. But you're supposed to cheer for that. There will be consequences if you don't.
That's quite funny actually. Will the facts even be allowed to come out? Will CNN even cover the Senate hearings?
If they don't, and I can't imagine why not, no loss. Someone else will.
CNN is not Fox News -- I am allowed to have other options.
They wouldn't even telecast the LIVE opening statement of the Horowizt report with Senator Graham. Or will they have it on their screen but have their commentators have the screens muted while they dish out their own assertions of what they want people to believe.
Even with this you're assuming the worst of another.
... But I guess only I need to be wary of that, eh?
And of course that's merely your own biased opinion that their rejection is based ONLY on loyalty to the President.
Not
my bias; theirs.
'Going to take my cues from the president’s lawyers’: McConnell to coordinate with White House on impeachment