Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you read the transcript, you have read where they continued the planning process which anticipated that the funds were going to be released in time to distribute them. This way they would not be caught flat footed once the aid was released. The aid was released on Sept 11th, for the very purpose of giving the process time to ensure aid was delivered
And the Biden investigations were to have been going ahead or (if you believe Sondland) merely announced. It again comes down to timelines but to my recall Zelensky cancelled the announcement of the investigations only after the Complaint went public or Congress began investigating. Per Fareed Zakaria (whose show it was to be on) within the day, or maybe two.
That's the problem with getting factoids fed through tweets, rightwing news. They need to be evaluated comprehensively.
My guess is that Zelensky with the aid flowing would not have reneged on Trump but gone ahead with his CNN appearance and the announcement. But once this blew up, how could he? Zelensky ran on an anti-corruption platform. For him to have clearly been participating in Trump-led corruption would have been a tough sell home in Ukraine.
Only a COMPETE MORON would believe the BS that Trump withheld aid to a country like Ukraine (did not do so to any other nation) because other countries did not pay their full share.
Then you are not paying attention to history. That was his gripe with the countries in NATO. Now other countries are paying more for their own security because he spoke up and took a stand.
Let say you are right and Trump is just hiding the trail. (I am not backtracking or agreeing with you)
Testimony has been almost entirely hearsay and opinion. He received no services the prompted the payment. NYTimes and CNN can say whatever they want. Officially, there's nothing but hearsay, opinion, and speculation.
Should he be impeached based on opinions of what he did?
I would be far more receptive to the argument concerning lack of first-hand information if the Trump Administration's refusal to comply with Congressional subpoenas wasn't the reason for the lack of first-hand information. Trump can hardly complain about hearsay evidence while stonewalling any attempt to get relevant documents that could corroborate (or disprove) the given testimony. His obstruction in this regard in and of itself is an impeachable offense.
Let say you are right and Trump is just hiding the trail. (I am not backtracking or agreeing with you)
Testimony has been almost entirely hearsay and opinion. He received no services the prompted the payment. NYTimes and CNN can say whatever they want. Officially, there's nothing but hearsay, opinion, and speculation.
Should he be impeached based on opinions of what he did?
Probably not convicted by the Senate, as it stands now - unless it is for obstruction of justice. That the WH is keeping folks from testifying but then spinning fibs doesn't sit well. The public should have a full record - Giuliani, Mulvaney, Bolton.
Then the next step would be how this fits into the Constitution and precedent with the hearings before the Judicial Committee or whatever comes next. Impeachment may be viewed perhaps as bringing the charge for a trial. Maybe there is enough for that.
The larger issue is that all or the vast majority politicians and past presidents may well have conducted themselves in ways that are not acceptable but that remained uncovered. But what Trump was doing with Giuliani was just plain stupid - the Bolton comment that Giuliani was a hand grenade - to where he got caught. Even so, there probably should be a smoking gun - words direct from Trump's mouth (absent maybe the obstruction issue).
Democrat should pack it in. It is around 50/50 or so according to the American people if he should be impeached.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist # 65 summed it up.
"... will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.
In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
Then you are not paying attention to history. That was his gripe with the countries in NATO. Now other countries are paying more for their own security because he spoke up and took a stand.
Do not disagree. That is Trump's general philosophy - hence the already mentioned review of foreign aid in August 2019. But this does not suffice to explain away specific actions that are taken for a demonstrably other reason that appears corrupt. And again remember - per Mark Sandy - Trump did not even get the data on EU spending on Ukraine until AFTER the WB Complaint.
Then you are not paying attention to history. That was his gripe with the countries in NATO. Now other countries are paying more for their own security because he spoke up and took a stand.
Democrat should pack it in. It is around 50/50 or so according to the American people if he should be impeached.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist # 65 summed it up.
"... will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.
In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
At least the Dems are trying to do the right thing, which is pretty much all we can ask.
At least the Dems are trying to do the right thing, which is pretty much all we can ask.
I ( and others ) don't think that's what Hamilton was saying, although Adam Schiff would have you believe that is the case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
