The problem with this tepid "half support" of Donald Trump deal that we see all the time...

It's crystal clear that many experts (such as Turley and McCarthy) do not believe that Trump should be charged with these crimes. But why the insistence in every article that they must criticize the very actions that they are attempting to defend.

A true arbitrator of the truth would simply go all in with the truth, rather than wade in half way. While it is pretty close to impossible to defend 100% of the actions of any politician, the trademark of the legal analysts who apparently want to avoid being called "pro-Trump" is to constantly remind us that they did not approve of the actions that they are legally defending.

Why is it that we must chastise Trump for demanding that the 2020 election was fraudulent when going back to the 2000 election, no Republican has won without Democrats and much of the media demanding they stole it.

Certainly Gore was considered by most liberals across the board as the legitimate winner in 2000. Bush was the "resident" not "President" and it was the USSC who appointed Bush, not the people who elected him. Many thought Kerry was cheated. Do you remember the faulty exit polling that had Kerry sweeping the great lake states and winning 2004 by a landslide and how liberals demanded that it must be the counting (not the polling) that was wrong? Kerry challenged results (to no avail) and Democratic Senators objected to the Electoral College votes.

Let's not even start with the Russian collusion lie pushed by Hillary Clinton that led to far more violence, injury, and destruction than anything that happened in 2021. That was an all out constitutional attack on the legitimacy not only of our election, our election processes, but of the Trump Presidency as a whole. Entirely build off a blatant lie that Clinton and others knew full well was a lie.

So today, Turley writes an article about Biden, Burisma, Ukraine, and the prosecutor that Biden had fired. It turns out that contrary to the Biden claim, that there was no official US position on firing the prosecutor Shokin. In fact, recently uncovered documents show that Ukraine was seen as making gains against corruption and that the State Department had praised Shokin and his efforts as prosecutor. More importantly, Diplomats associated with Ukraine did have corruption concerns at the time. Those concerned involved Joe Biden and the fact that his kid Hunter was sitting on the board of directors of a Ukrainian energy company, not the prosecutor.

So why then would Turley defend Trump's attempts to ask Zelensky whether or not the US government was involved in any pressuring to get Shokin fired as it pertained to impeachment, while simultaneously demanding that he didn't personally approve of the phone call? This seems like an unnecessary quantification of support and quite frankly something that begs the question of why? It seems that if we believed that people within our Government were acting corruptly in another country, that it would be a wise and just move to ask questions. I see no good reason why Trump needed to avoid asking about it. Joe Biden has not avoided questioning the actions of his predecessor.

Almost seems like the double flipping, bending over backwards, support-non-support for Trump is just a knee jerk reaction to guard against being called a Trump supporter? Is the pressure that great in the circles these people live in that they cannot actually defend what appears to be 100% just because the person involved is Donald Trump? Because based on what we know now, Trump had every reason to question Ukraine on this issue and every reason to wonder if our Government acted in an unethical manner to protect personal interests?

Why demand that you don't approve? It is becoming quite tiresome in my humble opinion.