breadsmasher , 6 hours ago

Republicans, explain how these are similar? Do you really consider a president using funds from the government to provide aid in exchange for a personal favour equivalent to a president allegedly being on the phone to a bank to get their sons a loan?

Remember - in the first case there were literally phone call recordings. In the second, there is no evidence beyond whats being alleged.

Both are “abuse of office”. You acquitted the first. Do you really feel the second is just as bad or worse than the first? Why?

A

A president of the united states called the leader of another foreign sovereign nation in an attempt to coerce said foreign nation to investigate a conspiracy theory about the president’s political opponent in exchange for 400million dollars in military aid to defend against a third foreign nation. A quid quo pro deal.

Said president instigated an attack on the capitol building in an attempt to overthrow democracy and prevent votes from being counted.

B

The sons of a president of the united states, while on the phone to … a bank? financial institution? some loan provider … put the president on the phone to exchange pleasantries. No alleged quid quo pro - even from the republican report from what I have seen.

Calling it now - not a single republican voter will provide a coherent response.