Let's put to rest another pervasive, false, right wing talking point.

I'll give you credit for some pretty good spin. Two things about what you wrote. 1. There is no credible evidence of corruption by the prior admin or by Biden with respect to Shokin's firing. None. 2. Apparently, the only proof you would find convincing Don's motivation for the extortion was political in nature is for him to admit it. Despite every bit of evidence showing political motivation to be the case. Like, for example, Yovanovitch's removal in order to clear the way for the pursuit of a Biden investigation.

Lev Parnas tells a Ukraine representative in a small meeting in Kyiv sometime in May that “the United States would freeze aid” and Pence would not attend the inauguration if Ukraine does not announce an investigation into the Bidens, according to what Parnas’s lawyer tells the New York Times his client would tell Congress. “Parnas’s lawyer … said the message to the Ukrainians was given at the direction of Mr. Giuliani, whom Mr. Parnas believed was acting under Mr. Trump’s instruction.”
https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

So..........please do go on pretending the debate is as you've framed it if you so desire.

 

There is not one shred of spin in what I said. This is precisely why you fail to understand the Right's position. It is because you refuse to listen. What PROOF do you have that his request was relative to 2020? I realize that you have a strong suspicion, but what PROOF are you claiming? Saying "every bit of evidence" does not suffice. Pointing to frozen aid does not suffice ( aid could be frozen just as easily for assistance in investigating past corruption as it could for investigating for 2020). None of what you have said counts as proof of it being specifically for 2020, yet you and most leftists (including the articles of impeachment) proceed as if that is a given. It is not a given. It is nothing more than your strong suspicion and you lack anything that is even remotely conclusive in proving your suspicion. For the record, I am not accusing you of creating this strawman argument. I am accusing you of FALLING for the carefully crafted Democrat strawman argument. They have misled you......again.

You are proving my original point precisely. You are wanting to ignore what I have just said and change the subject, but what I have said IS the subject. Until you realize what this debate is about, you are going to remain hopelessly confused as evidenced in your OP that grossly mischaracterizes the right's argument.

In the hopes that repitition builds retention.......The debate is NOT as you put it whether or not soliciting help from Ukraine for the 2020 election is a crime. The debate is whether or not the act of asking for Ukraine's help in investigating Biden was an act of investigating corruption within the past administration or whether it is an act of asking for help in the upcoming election. You can suspect that it is about 2020 all that you like, but definitive proof of such does not exist. Perhaps your suspicion is correct, perhaps it is not. Perhaps it is a combination of the two. The problem that you have is that no such proof has been presented, and it is highly unlikely that irrefutable proof would exist even if your suspicion were 100% correct. You are taking your suspicion ( that his motive was 2020), and falsely proceeding as if your suspicion has been proven. It has not. The only proof that you have is that he asked for assistance in the investigation. The motive that you are proscribing is just supposition.

 

Where is your evidence that Trump's asking Zelensky a favor was about the 2020 election and not about a treaty we have with Ukraine to fight corruption and not about the video of Biden bragging about shaking down Poroshenko holding $1B in aid over his head to get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired ,,, the same prosecutor who was investigating the corrupt gas company that was paying Hunter Biden to get his father to end the investigation.

 

Everything stated in your exert is just the opinion of the democrats running the bogus sham, 100% opinion.

 

~ I believe you have indicated an obvious "consumption" left wing media . Carry on ....

 

This is truly insane.

According to Sonland's testimony, all Zelenksy had to do was announce they were going to do an investigation, not actually conduct one. WTF do you think would have been the reason for this had it not been to aid Trump's re-election?

It may not be illegal, but it is unethical to think that an American President is asking a foreign leader to investigate an American citizen. If Trump really believes this Biden nonsense conspiracy, there is a protocol for that which would involve the DOJ. Stepping outside of that protocol and interjecting Giuliani into this crazy scheme, who is not elected nor an official representative of the US government is a clear violation of impropriety. The very fact Trump has shown no interest in any other foreign corruption is pretty clear indication he was digging dirt for his own gain. That the Right refuses to acknowledge this inconvenient fact is proof how far down the Rabbit Hole the GOP has sunk to cover for this conman.

 

That was Sondlands assumption for which he said he had no proof.

 

There is no evidence of abuse of power.

NEXT!!!!

 

I see you continue to deflect attention away from the evidence in Mueller's report not only of collusion but of unequivocal obstruction of a congressional inquiry. I know full well why Trumpette's don't want to debate me. I have facts, they have smokescreens, whataboutisms, false equivalences, falsehoods, and the burden of trying to defend someone when all the evidence points to his guilt.

 

You mean except for the overwhelming evidence?

 

You mean Sondlands testimony that has been directly refuted by the person to whom Sondland claimed to have had his conversation?...LOL.....Seriously? ...and you think that constitutes proof? That notion is positively delusional. There is no way in hell that would constitute proof positive of such an assertion. Once again, it perhaps makes you suspicious, but in no way is actual proof. You seem to have forgotten that you actually have to prove that this was about 2020, and you are nowhere close to that threshold. For you to label insane, my insistence that the allegations need to be proven, is positively INSANE. I can understand your suspicion, but your belief that this has been proven is nonsensical. I suspect that the 100 plus million dollars that was donated to the Clinton Foundation from the board members of that Uranium company was tied to the sale, but I lack actual PROOF of such. I suspect that the Obama white house had something to do with tea party groups being targeted by the IRS, but I lack actual proof of such. There are lots of things in the political arena that makes one go hmmmm........but actual proof is required before an impeachment moves forward or charges are filed.You understand this concept full well, except when it involves Trump, in which case many leftists completely lose their minds.

Trumps request DID include the DOJ if you had bothered to read the released transcript of the call.

 

More likely

 

What's unequivocally wrong here is your kind of thinking. Fully expected, but wrong.

The president SHOULD be requesting investigations of probable corruption, and he should be exposing it. The charges of wrong doing here against Trump lack any definitive crime- but the actions of Joe Biden which relate exactly to the same kind of situation with the same people, are totally definitive of the Quid Pro Quo act. Biden himself related his actions on video- that he threatened and withheld aid, under the specific condition that the prosecutor investigating the company his son was collecting money from be fired. He bragged that they did, and he won. Unquestionable.

Now a grade-school kid with an average IQ would smell the motives and probable game here. It's not even debatable, because Joe made it clear. Joe didn't wait for the Ukraine to announce it either- he went to the press to do it. The dems simply ignore that, but wet their pants trying to blame Trump for making a request that had no access to money attached. The extreme bias of the left is crystal clear in this, as it has been in most of the scams they have tried. Sometimes takes a while to expose the underlying motive, but it keeps on happening- and they don't learn a damn thing from it.

The fact that Biden was a potential candidate DOES NOT provide him a shield from criticism, from investigation of corruption or anything else. DOES NOT.
While the dossier was indeed a covert plot to interfere with our politics, that's been proven to be motivated and paid for by the democrats. THAT QUALIFIES as meeting the same definition you are trying to use to attack Trump.

You seem totally unable to get away from your "Orange Man Bad" perception, even for a moment.

There is a lot of stage 4 TDS around us these days, and that is terminal. About November 8th, I'd say.

 

Exactly.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/imp...ow-he-overheard-trump-call-with-sondland.html

 

You mean Sondlands testimony that has been directly refuted by the person to whom Sondland claimed to have had his conversation?...LOL.....Seriously? ...and you think that constitutes proof? That notion is positively delusional. There is no way in hell that would constitute proof positive of such an assertion. Once again, it perhaps makes you suspicious, but in no way is actual proof. You seem to have forgotten that you actually have to prove that this was about 2020, and you are nowhere close to that threshold. For you to label insane, my insistence that the allegations need to be proven, is positively INSANE. I can understand your suspicion, but your belief that this has been proven is nonsensical. I suspect that the 100 plus million dollars that was donated to the Clinton Foundation from the board members of that Uranium company was tied to the sale, but I lack actual PROOF of such. I suspect that the Obama white house had something to do with tea party groups being targeted by the IRS, but I lack actual proof of such. There are lots of things in the political arena that makes one go hmmmm........but actual proof is required before an impeachment moves forward or charges are filed.You understand this concept full well, except when it involves Trump, in which case many leftists completely lose their minds.

Trumps request DID include the DOJ if you had bothered to read the released transcript of the call.

 

You miss one tiny little point. Trump requested Ukraine make a public announcement on CNN that Ukraine was beginning an investigation of the Biden's. This was later confirmed through a telephone call from Trump to the Ambassador of Ukraine Sondland . 'Trump doesn't care about the investigation, he cares about the big stuff (like getting reelected).'

The totality of this and volumes of sworn testimony leaves no doubt that Trump's concern for reelection and his fear of front runner Biden was the driving force in the impeachment investigation. Recent posts have shown that Trump camps are not interested in presentation of facts. The have their alternate facts, with no bearing whatever on sworn testimony, proven data, and transcripts. There is little reason to debate further. The Earth is round, not flat.

 

But..........I don't fail to understand it. It goes something like this. "I will continue to defend my Dear Leader against any and all accusations no matter how much evidence there is of his guilt, even if it means torturing logic, reason, evidence, history, ignoring first hand witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, documentary evidence, and Don's refusal (see inability) to present a credible defense other than claiming the Zelensky call 'was perfect'."

 

I have missed nothing. The allegation is that he said he wanted Ukraine to announce that they are starting an investigation into Burisma, and into meddling into the 2016 election. Despite the fact that there is no direct testimony of Trump actually telling that specific thing to Sondland (only a mention from him that it was generally known), I will even allow you to say that this is a given fact. Even if we accept that as a given fact, which it is not, that STILL does not prove that it is about 2020. The left is pretending like only wanting an announcement means that he doesnt actually care about the investigation, so therefore he only wants it for political purposes. That interpretation is not even close to being proven. Wanting an announcement ( if we pretend that notion is actually proven) can just as easily be confirmation that they are beginning the investigation, and not requiring them to finish the investigation before money is released. When customers of the company that I currently work for are on credit hold, we will release the product when they tell us that they are sending a check. This doesnt mean that we only want them to announce that they are sending a check. It only means that we are taking them at their word that the check is in the mail when they say they are sending it. That is every bit as logical of a conclusion to draw then is to say that an announcement only means that they want the announcement for political means and dont really care about the actual investigation. Once again you have suspicions, but your assertion is FAR from proven.

Just because you add in the caveat "the totality of this and volumes of sworn testimony" means absolutely nothing. The best thing you have as proof is the notion that he asked for an announcement, and even that proves absolutely nothing. You dont get the benefit of the doubt to say " and volumes of sworn testimony" and pretend like that means anything. If you have other evidence bring it out. I will shoot it down just like I just shot down your best. The notion you are alleging is FAR from proven. You suspect that his request was about 2020 and you have some circumstantial evidence that could be interpreted as such, but you have failed to actually prove the notion.

 

Bingo. If Trump was actually interested in corruption in Ukraine how would the mere announcement of an investigation in to Old Joe, not an actual investigation, address that issue? It wouldn't. This makes it clear his real desire was compromising Biden's campaign for the presidency.

 

LOL....So you don't want to address what I am saying, and instead you want to entirely misrepresent the right's position and then argue against your mischaracterization instead. This is not typically the tactic of a person that is holding a winning hand in a debate.

 

What? We have Don's direct testimony..........it's the Zelensky call summary.

 

I addressed exactly what you are saying.........minus the spin.

 

Even if we accept this disputed notion as absolute fact, that could just as easily be interpreted as wanting a good faith show that they are beginning the investigation. My company currently does that with customers on credit hold. Since they owe money, we will not release product because their account is past due, but if they tell us they are sending a check, we take their word at good faith and ship the product. That interpretation is ABSOLUTELY a realistic interpretation of that set of facts (even if we accept that disputed assertion as fact). Your interpretation is a suspicion, but FAR from proven.

 

Yeah...and I successfully shot down everything you have said. You lack definitive proof. It is as simple as that. Just because you come back a few days later and act as if you had proved your point, means absolutely nothing. It is all there in black and white and this is a short thread. I invite anyone to go back and read the record.

 

The Zelensky call testimony backs up your notion that this was contingent upon them ANNOUNCING an investigation?......name that tune. Lets see it.

For your convenience...here is a link. I will be waiting with baited breath. Just cut and paste the part that you think backs up this claim.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html