for Ukraine to investigate Biden to receive the aid previously authorized by Congress, do you agree that’s it’s both an impeachable and removable offense?
P.S. By established I mean using a clear and convincing evidence standard.
as he asks Medvedev for more space. It didn't include "money", but still a quid pro quo.
He didn’t promise them anything, and didn’t give them anything at that time. He indicated a willingness to talk to them in the future when he would have more ability to be flexible in negotiations which was a completely truthful statement. Again though, no promises or commitments or concessions.
Was it the smartest thing to say near an open mic, nah.
Pretty much destroying the quid pro quo narrative.
Did the EU make a huge contribution to them like Orange wanted?
He did it because he knew the gig was up.
(no message)
Also the fact that he released it only after this started coming out is more damning then helpful.
Proving that he wanted Biden investigated wouldn’t even do it. They would have to prove that a requested investigation of Biden was wholly detached from general corruption investigations and solely for his personal political gain.
And out of all the corruption on the planet, his focus was Ukraine? As opposed to ..... Russia for instance?
And out of all the corruption in Ukraine, that Trump was best positioned to call it out? As opposed to President Zelensky (elected because he is viewed as clean and not corrupt)? As opposed to the Ukraine media who frequently and aggressively report on corruption?
And that out of all the corruption in Ukraine, that Biden was coincidentally the #1 suggested target?
Yet nevertheless wanted the phone call transcript stored in secret vault?
And endeavored to quash the WB complaint before it made it to Congress?
And coincidentally released the military aid funds to Ukraine the day after the Intelligence IG noticed the House of the WB complaint?
At some point, Republicans have to be hard, cold factfinders, and see things as they truly are.
I think there are very few people with an unbiased outlook on what he says and does. I also believe we don’t have all of the facts to paint a full and clear picture.
After tomorrow’s vote where the evidence and testimony will be presented to the public, I respectfully invite you and all posters to examine the testimony of the career folks — the ones who have served for decades under different administrations, — the ones who have no political agenda.
Ask yourself why red flags went off in their minds in real time. Ask yourself why they asked questions, sought legal counsel, and confronted superiors when they learned what Trump was doing in Ukraine.
Follow it closely. Scrutinize all you want.
Just please be objective.
The D’s aren’t the ones who arranged that stupid ass call or put a hold on aid that was approved on a bipartisan basis by Congress, or dispatched his personal attorney to pressure Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political rival. Who does that shit? If Obama did that the entire GOP would have been apoplectic.
(no message)
(no message)
For me. it's all about the Courts... and then the economy.
I also have no problems living with a quid pro quo liked this... at all. Call me anything you want.
I gather you do not favor a corrupt judiciary or seek to have the judiciary act as a political weapon for either party?
I gather you seek an independent judiciary, who calls balls 'n strikes, and fairly and objectively interprets the law.
Would it not follow that a US President should honor the same laws that the Executive branch is tasked to enforce? And if a President flagrantly defies the laws, particularly at the risk of US national security interests, should he be given a free pass because he is of your political party?
Do you have any standards for a US President? Or is your position that if one wins an election, one has free reign for the length of their 4 year term to do as they please?
And the law itself is very very political. The list of examples is infinite.
Shaking down a foreign govt for personal gain crosses that line for me, again IF proven
But it needs to be that clear, at least to me. Everyone has their own standard.
I felt it was trivial and a waste of time. I've been to Ukraine and I feel the same way about Trump's negotiating tactics with one of the most corrupt nations on earth.
Not impeachable IMHO. Said so at the time when the Cole’s and Baron’s of the world had their pitch forks out. Guys like Graham and McConnell look stupid now based on what they said then.
Extorting a foreign govt to get dirt on a political rival by using presidential power to withhold authorized aid is clearly a removable abuse of power again IMHO.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The career experts, diplomats, and witnesses to the communications timeline, have all testified as such.
And the ask by Trump was not only to investigate Biden, but to make the investigation "public."
Trump just wanted the story -- the perceived "dirt" -- that was the currency Trump demanded from Ukraine in return for military aid and a seat at the table.
The quid pro quo was a "an official investigation" into Biden + Ukraine being source of 2016 election meddling in exchange for release of military aid.
Who will testify that Orange said or ordered those things? No second hand hearsay, directI heard him say to hold up the aid that fits within the timeline of the call.
The reports of those witnesses who have already testified make it clear Trump was the driver. Does anyone really think it was Rudy?
Unlike the Mueller probe where Trump was insulated by campaign staff running interference, he can't run from his own words.
He said he did it out of a concern about general corruption there. Of course that's BS, but he hasn’t admitted doing it to ensure an investigation.
Even if reports & leaks are only somewhat accurate - and they may well be more accurate than "somewhat" - there are multiple witnesses who will testify that Trump would not release the money until the Ukraine announced that it was investigating Biden (and 2016 and the "crowdstrike" nonsense).
In my view this is the abuse-of-power straw that broke the camel's back. He is unfit for the office.
Give us President Pence. Why anyone in the GOP would prefer Trump to that puritan is beyond me.
aid be withheld in connection with the requested “favor” of investigating Biden. No hearsay, direct evidence.
By the way I firmly believe that is what happened, but I also firmly believe that the will of the people shouldn’t be overturned (like do many of the Orange bots wanted to do with Clinton) unless the evidence is literally that clear and direct.
(no message)