There is plenty of denying that the military aid was about winning points in the domestic election. There was no mention of wanting political dirt, or anything to do with the coming election. In fact, as the transcript shows, it pertained to previous elections and previous officials in pervious administrations. So the part about it being about the 2020 election is completely fabricated.

While we’re talking about American citizens, remember that the previous (Biden’s) administration spied on its own citizens, members of Trumps campaign, leading to unjust investigations for years, including during two crucial elections. This is an unprecedented occurrence and a potential abuse of power within the entire security apparatus. This administration wants to investigate this injustice and hold the previous administration to account for any corruption. A very big DOJ investigation into this is occurring as we speak. This is in America’s best interests.

Second, Biden’s son was on the board of a corrupt holdings company in an industry in which he had no experience, in one of the most corrupt countries in the world, A country in which he didn’t speak the language, making over $50000 a month, while his father just so happened to be the point man there: the Vice President of the United States. It is in America’s best interests to know what’s up with this.

Third, we now have to sit while the Dems give a political and now public investigation of their political opponent before the upcoming election. The irony is thick. But I am told I should worry about an investigation that did not occur, military aid that was not held up, a victim that felt no pressure, and the foreign policy of the man we voted in to direct foreign policy. It’s nonsense.

Allow me to respond in chunks so we can address each point.

There is plenty of denying that the military aid was about winning points in the domestic election. — NOS4A2

In fact, as the transcript shows, it pertained to previous elections and previous officials in pervious administrations. So the part about it being about the 2020 election is completely fabricated. — NOS4A2

Don't you think that having the president of Ukraine make a public investigation our of Biden's son would benefit Trump in the upcoming election? It would be of undeniable benefit. Do you deny that?

Photographer captures picture of Republican impeachment defense strategies in their natural habitat:

Meanwhile, at the White House, Trump hosted and toasted one of his favourite dictators - 'Trump emerged from hours of talks with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Wednesday to declare himself a "big fan" of Turkey's strongman leader.'

You can bet your boots that if/when the Senate acquits, he'll take a leaf from Erdoğan's book - suspend the constitution, start to round up his accusers, and move towards extending his term extra-constitutionally. And who will be there to stop him, if the GOP has acquitted?

Don't you think that having the president of Ukraine make a public investigation our of Biden's son would benefit Trump in the upcoming election? It would be of undeniable benefit. Do you deny that?

It certainly would. Do you believe potential corruption in Ukraine should not be investigated because one of the named figures is running in an election?

Are you saying they should investigate both?

Corruption is corruption, and it should all be investigated. I lose no sleep over Biden et al, and the possible exposure of their corruption (I sort of relish it).

There are two important caveats.

First Caveat: Constitutionally, the government is obligated to uphold the rights of their citizens (including Biden Jr.), but they can't do that if American citizens are being held or prosecuted by a foreign government (embassies and consulates offer assistance to legally entangled American tramps, and there are prisoner exchange programs for this reason). The law of the land is the law of the land (criminals abroad should be punished), but there is little to no reason for America to actively petition another nation to prosecute an American citizen. Ethically, if there is justice that needs getting (especially if American interests are involved), then it ought to be the American judicial system that renders that justice. I'm sure the anti-corruption and racketeering laws of the U.S have ample precedent and jurisdiction to accomplish that. In summary, wanting corruption to be investigated is not wrong, but asking demanding other nations to prosecute and incarcerate American citizens is. The fact that the main target was the Biden family just makes the motive obvious: winning points in the 2020 election by making Biden and the democratic party look corrupt (as if that isn't already clear anyhow. Would you like some coffin to go with these nails?)...

Second Caveat: The national interests and security of America (and her allies,where applicable) must be considered by the cardinal office charged with their preservation. In other words, the need for public investigations into the Bidens by Ukraine does not reasonably justify compromising military and foreign policy. Trump was more interested in preserving his seat in the office than the nation the office serves. That's a really serious problem, and doing nothing about it isn't an option. Even if the dems fail to impeach Trump, they will have at least sent the message that the oval office isn't a license to carpetbag American interests, whether at home or abroad (countering Russia in Ukraine is in American interests, and withholding aid to Ukraine is an intolerable risk to that interest).

You’re being fed lines. Some stories don’t have two sides, and this is one of them.

Third caveat: Trump didn't just ask for an investigation, he asked for a public announcement that there would be an investigation. That's for Trump's benefit, not America's.

Fourth caveat: It was illegal to withhold aid.

https://theconversation.com/why-leaders-who-bullshit-are-more-dangerous-than-those-who-lie-125109?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0QNmNmxzJPDsNXNeXqlmPpF9V0Cbq24DU9jZ5lFpPnCOqwT2-PXaDWrf8#Echobox=1573713296

I love how only my statements receive your criticism while everyone else's are pushed aside and covered for. — NOS4A2

Am I not allowed to pick and choose what I find interesting? Who am I "covering for" by asking you a question? Why are you so afraid of questions, anyways?

Prosecuted by a foreign government? No one asked for such a thing. In fact, Trump asked the president of Ukraine to speak with our Attorney General regarding such matters. The attorney general, as you know, is the top attorney in the United States, not Ukraine. As I’ve stated, there are currently vast investigations occurring in the US on these and related matters.

There is no evidence Trump was “more interested in preserving his seat in office than the nation the office serves”. Absolutely none. It’s completely made up and simply repeating it doesn’t make it more true.

Regarding withholding the aid, As Copper’s testimony attests, there was a concern about how to do it legally, meaning within the law, which I can only assume they did. I see it as an obligation of our president to make sure one of the most corrupt countries in the world at least promises, even publicly, to root out corruption before handing them millions of taxpayer dollars.

I guess I have some cognitive dissonance about the sense of fervor and desperation with which this is being pursued. It’s not a trustworthy demeanor in general. It’s particularly suspicious to see it in the folks who showed very little gumption about a child sex trafficking operation. Incidentally, a key figure in the impeachment appears to be pretty fuckin creepy and at least sympathetic to pedophiles.

There is exactly one likeable thing about Trump and it’s the unlikeability of his opponents. Careful of that. I’m going back into hermit mode, wasn’t a good time to peak out!

Prosecuted by a foreign government? No one asked for such a thing. . — NOS4A2

The evidence makes it pretty clear that Trump wanted actual investigations to be opened (by the Ukranian administration/government). The whole "I want him in a public box" thing is really unambiguous. Even if Trump didn't expect real investigations from Ukraine, he at least wanted the appearance of them (and if that is the case, then our discussion would shift to focusing on election and foreign policy interference)

But, can we both agree that if it is true that Trump tried to incite a Ukranian investigation into an American citizen, that there is a serious problem in and of itself? To be clear, America has no formal obligation to defend it's ex-pat criminals, but an American institution seeking justice against an American citizen via the proxy of a foreign legal system is in this situation bat-shit insane (Hunter Biden isn't some kind of cartel kingpin that is out of reach of the long American law-arm).

Let me continue to clarify: intelligence sharing isn't problematic, and asking Ukraine to share evidence of 2016 election interference (regardless of who's son it taints) is not a problem (although,how that evidence is handled, vetted,and disseminated could be problematic). But what IS a problem is when America ostensibly abandons the constitutional duty they have (to each and every citizen, criminals included) by asking another country to perform justice upon them.

I realize I'm jumping the gun a bit here: I still need to convince you that Trump did in fact want Ukraine to open actual investigations. Most of the other liberals here and elsewhere are focusing mainly on how targeting the Biden family amounts to 2020 election interference, and how withholding aid amounts to a treasonous abuse of power for personal gain (the personal gain being points in the 2020 election), but if we zoom in even further then we don't need any of that to see why this is such a problem:::::

As far as I know, the president is endowed with the power to pardon, but importantly, not the power to condemn. I guess this would go back to the whole separate and equal branches of government and a republic, if you can keep it shtick that the founders liked to bandy. There's really an important idea contained within those statements: we need impartial legal processes (both in the judicial system, and in the election system) because the whole philosophical basis for America's existence is anti tyranny. Tyranny is about tyrants: authorities who do whatever they want regardless of rules, tradition, or justification. Trump trying to pursue justice outside of the American judicial system, against an American citizen, is fundamentally a stab in the back of everything America actually stands for. American's aren't free under their own government if it can undermine the very processes that were designed specifically to guarantee that freedom.

But, can we both agree that if it is true that Trump tried to incite a Ukranian investigation into an American citizen, that there is a serious problem in an of itself? — VagabondSpectre

You won't get agreement on that from the person you're talking to. If Trump supporters came to agree with that, it would be game over for Trump. So that is the one thing they will never agree to. Remember, in the Trump World, it is impossible for Trump to ever do or say anything wrong, so any wrongdoing or falsehoods always must originate with someone other than Trump. Trump is only a ever a victim - of the Deep State, evil bureaucrats, corrupt spies, fake news, and shifty Democrats. That is what you need to agree is the problem.

I’m going back into hermit mode — Roke

Good call.

The fact that he wanted public announcements about the launch of investigations is basically slow motion video of the gun itself being fired (the election interference gun), but some people will have a hard time understanding the gravity of this because of the anti-corruption defense/rebuke.

They already believe that there is corruption that needs rooting, so even though Biden's son got found out: justice is justice.. I think it is more persuasive to start by showing just how out of the ordinary the move was in the first place. When ASAP rocky got incarcerated for assault/battery in Sweden, Trump sent out tweets of support; he's an American, and America has got American backs. But when it comes to a political rival, throw them under the foreign bus? No no no... It simply must not be permitted to work that way. It's not so much a slippery slope as it is a sudden democracy-killing pit-fall trap that is a favorite of corrupt strong-men; dictators.

There's the illegal compromising of American security gun (withholding the aid), there's the election interference gun (targeting Biden specifically, with the demand for public announcements), but I think it is best to start with the much humbler gun of undermining the constitutional rights of American citizens. I'm not entirely sure what the necessary legal implications of asking another government to investigate or prosecute an American citizen are (party connections not withstanding), but something tells me that it amounts to a gross betrayal of the American system (one in which the executive branch extra-legally attacks an American citizen, thereby subverting their constitutional rights, while also subverting the judicial branch).

There may be no strong legal argument or precedent to be had in this, but there is a very persuasive argument from ideology. Republicans believe that they believe in the rule of law, the American way, and the fundamental freedoms guaranteed them by the constitution. As much as they love Trump (which is to say, as much as they despise democrats), they love their principles even more. Removing politics from the equation (sticking to the philosophical side of things) is the shortest road to common ground between the poles IMO.

P.S:I am very keen to hear any insights you might have about the constitutional argument I've tried to delineate. I suspect it would be a matter for the Supreme court to rule on...

That is what you need to agree is the problem. — Wayfarer

Some people are incorrigible ideologues, for sure, but everyone has a limit, and everyone can be persuaded. If I assume that nothing can persuade my interlocutor, then I'll just probably wind up entrenching his position. In effect, it would amount to calling him stupid, and he would assume that I have no actual arguments or evidence. Instead (ideally) I can try to understand his position well enough to also understand how it has persuaded him into his current position. Ultimately that is the key to identifying which arguments and evidence will actually make a persuasive difference in the long run.

In this case, given Republicans derive most of their confidence from ideological principles and distrust of the left, the most persuasive argument is one which relies on agreeable ideology/political philosophy, and which excludes anything vaguely resembling leftist politics. "It's an uphill battle" is an understatement in many cases, but if die hard Trump supporters think that they care about truth, then the truth may out.

'Ideologue' flatters them. It doesn't rise to the level of ideology. Trump doesn't represent conservatism. and his GOP lackeys have long since walked away from core conservative values.

Another point - this GOP meme about the impeachment being 'a coup' or 'an attempt to undo the last election' is another attack on the constitution. Impeachment was enshrined into the American constitution, specifically so that Congress could act to check corruption or crimes committed by a President. In this case, there is clear evidence of wrong-doing, and a constitutionally valid committee has been set up to investigate it.

The pattern of calling the process a coup, or suggesting that witnesses are biased, or don't llike Trump's policies, are (1) lies, and (2) contempt of the constitution.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/impeachment-not-coup/601981/

I am reticent to conflate the GOP establishment (and it's gimp-slaves like Lindsey Graham) with conservatives at large. They're really not so bad, and when I see a regular person who is completely misinformed (convinced the dems are all liars, for instance), I will happily blame the absolute mockery of journalism that is Fox News, and the grotesquely contorted political-party that creates the milieu Fox News inhabits.

That said, I'm also of the opinion that the DNC is also featured in the freak show, making me a reformist. Election systems are fucked (along with the parties), health-care system is fucked, prison and judicial system is fucked, education system is fucked or at least fucks over the non-wealthy, industrial military complex is fucked, the wealth gap is fucked and promises civil unrest in the near future, foreign and domestic policy is now (and arguably has been) fucked by a never ending stable of lobbyists and interest groups, et cetra...

The party divide is not really on my radar as fundamental issue or threat. In fact, in a decade or two, unless there is economic change for the lower class, social unrest will dissolve any disunity between conservatives and progressives, and all that will matter is tearing down a broken system which has so thoroughly fucked them all.

I've been supporting Trump's impeachment since before he was elected, all because it is the perfect reform catalyst. I could not care less about the 2020 election or the dire need for each side to be the winner (it's complacency masquerading as expediency, masquerading as right and wrong).

Trump continues to vomit and shit on the resolute desk, just as I knew he would, and by god there has got to be a limit. Unless Trump's base actually does somewhat step back from their unconditional support (something you're saying they can't possibly do) then my hopes of reform are fucked, and America (and by extension the rest of the world which lives in its shadow) is itself fucked. I'll endure any amount of trolling just to find the one person who is open to evidence and reason. If in the end my hopes come to nothing, and the status quo carries on its current trajectory, then the term "Second American Revolution" is probably something we're going to be hearing in the future.

the term "Second American Revolution" is probably something we're going to be hearing in the future. — VagabondSpectre

Americans are, by and large, feckless and too addicted to their screens to revolt. A fantasy revolt is enough to give them a narcissist-charge. That's what they live on: a fantastic narcissism; that's what takes the edge off their anxiety and gives their lives a numbing dumbed-down shadow of meaning.

Which enlightened country do live, just out of curiosity.

I'm one of them: made in the USA.

Americans are, by and large, feckless and too addicted to their screens to revolt. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I would tend to agree, but even bread and games eventually give way to mounting inequality and suffering (wide-spread and systematic wanting, whether it's for justice, education, or economic/political opportunity). Things have to get pretty bad for an actual revolution to occur (at least according to history). One thing I will say though, is that so long as there are yet enough deep-pocketed "elites" who can influence or control the flow of screens and sweeties (in the past it has typically been land-owning nobles, but today it's the enfranchised wealthy and super-wealthy), then we will indeed be stuck with nothing but our narcissistic rage in this digital and intellectually desertified wilderness.

The evidence makes it pretty clear that Trump wanted actual investigations to be opened (by the Ukranian administration/government). The whole "I want him in a public box" thing is really unambiguous. Even if Trump didn't expect real investigations from Ukraine, he at least wanted the appearance of them (and if that is the case, then our discussion would shift to focusing on election and foreign policy interference)

Be careful, you’re making up quotes and attributing them to someone who never said them. That was something expressed by Taylor, quoting Sondland who was interpreting Trump’s desires. The fact that people are misquoting double-hearsay only attests to the fabricated nature of these accusations.

But remember what Sondland said when he asked Trump “What do you want with Ukraine?” According to Sondland, Trump replied “I want nothing. No quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.” Could it be possible that Trump wanted Zelensky to do the right thing, instead of this convoluted story about political dirt and future elections?

Any Ukrainian investigation would pertain to Ukrainian officials, Ukrainian companies, and corruption that occurred on Ukrainian soil. Burisma is a Ukrainian company. It’s not American. An American who engages in activities abroad is not immune to foreign laws unless he has immunity. Hunter Biden has never had diplomatic immunity. Even still, none of this means Ukrainian justice is going to be brought on Hunter Biden, who doesn’t even live under Ukrainian jurisdiction. What are all these but the fears of a future that will likely never be realized?

This entire show trial is built on a foundation of shifting sands, another political ploy payed for by the American taxpayer for the benefit the DNCs elections in 2020.

Be careful, you’re making up quotes and attributing them to someone who never said them. That was something expressed by Taylor, quoting Sondland who was interpreting Trump’s desires. The fact that people are misquoting double-hearsay only attests to the fabricated nature of these accusations. — NOS4A2

To be fair, I'm not making up quotes, I'm quoting sworn testimony. Taylor's understanding was that the military aid hinged on investigations. This is backed up the summarized transcript the WH released ("I would like you to do us a favor though"). But why would Taylor have that understanding if it didn't represent WH intentions? Why would Sondland interpret Trump's desires that way? Was he just confused?

Could it be possible that Trump wanted Zelensky to do the right thing, instead of this convoluted story about political dirt and future elections? — NOS4A2

Yeah, that sounds just like Trump ... "please, don't do me any favours, just do the right thing"... when "the right thing" is always defined by what is beneficial to me.

You know him well...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-50427731

On Thursday morning, the White House released a rough transcript of Donald Trump’s first phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on 21 April.

In it, the two exchanged pleasantries. Trump congratulated Zelensky on his election and suggested the possibility of a White House visit. Zelensky invited the US president to his inauguration in Kyiv, and plugged his country’s delicious food and hospitality. Trump agreed, citing his experience with Ukrainians in his days as a beauty pageant impresario.

The White House summary of the conversation released at the time, however, paints a different picture. It said Trump “noted” that the Ukrainian election had been conducted in a fair and open process. It said he “underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”.

And it said Trump had told Zelensky that the two would work together “to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption”.

None of those things happened.

It raises questions about why Trump didn’t talk about corruption or endorse Ukraine’s territorial integrity in the call, particularly given Ukraine’s history of prosecutorial misconduct and Russian support for insurgents fighting Ukrainians in the nation’s eastern border region. The summary may have been what the US foreign policy team wanted the president to emphasise, but he did not.

The White House regularly produces summaries of the president’s conversations with foreign leaders. The disparities between the April Ukrainian summary and the actual conversation may leave many Americans – and foreign leaders – wondering how much credence to place in those documents.

So does the White House lie when it provides a summary of the President's calls, or is the memo released today fabricated?

Fake News administration either way.

To be fair, I'm not making up quotes, I'm quoting sworn testimony. Taylor's understanding was that the military aid hinged on investigations. This is backed up the summarized transcript the WH released ("I would like you to do us a favor though"). But why would Taylor have that understanding if it didn't represent WH intentions? Why would Sondland interpret Trump's desires that way? Was he just confused?

There is no quote that says "I want him in a public box".

I just gave you sworn testimony of direct conversation with president Trump where Trump clearly expresses his intentions, but you’ve disregarded that for second-hand hearsay from someone who also stated they never talked to Trump, who understood Trump’s and Guillianni’s intentions only from an article in the New York Times. It’s not odd nor surprising that both you and Taylor can understand Trump’s intentions from the NYT, but completely ignore them when they come from sworn testimony from people who actually spoke to the president.

I’m sorry but this is a charade.

The big test is if a candidate from the other side did the exact same things, would you want them to be held accountable? Would you give them this much leeway? Would you hold them to the same standard?

The big test is if a candidate from the other side did the exact same things, would you want them to be held accountable? Would you give them this much leeway? Would you hold them to the same standard?

Let’s test it out. Here’s Biden regarding withholding 1 billion loan securities from Ukraine.

“ I looked at them and said: 'I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," he said. ”

Would you suggest Biden be impeached for one, withholding aid, and two, alleged bribery?