Red Faced, Trump Backs Out Of Using Doral Resort As Host Of G7 summit

[SkepticThinker]

Surely you realize that this is no argument at all. There is no way i believe you actually think you just made an argument.

And no, i DO believe my arguments. If i did not, i would not make them.

Umm, what? You made the argument. I pointed out that it's silly.
So, no, I don't think I made an argument. I think you did.


Can you explain how that argument you made makes any sense?

No, thats not what i illustrated at all. I illustrated the difference between a bribe and a innocent exchange and being real with those who pretend to give gifts.
Ya, bad job for you twisting what i illustrated.

It is. You just haven't realized it yet.

Someone gives a gift, expecting a favour down the road. Then when they need a favour, guess who they come calling to? (Hint: It's the guy they gave the gift to.)

No, in YOUR opinion theres something wrong with it. The law says otherwise.

And your interpretation of that law is WRONG.

In the eyes of the law, there is something wrong with it. Hence the reason for the impeachment inquiry. Even people on his side of the aisle see a problem with it, why? Because it's against the law!

"I would like you to do us a favour though ...."
-Trump



Neither my nor your opinion matters one whit.

 

[ecco]

Surely you realize how silly this argument is. There is no way I believe you are that naive and gullible.

There is a fine line between naivete and blind faith and willful ignorance.

 

[ecco]

No, thats not what i illustrated at all. I illustrated the difference between a bribe and a innocent exchange and being real with those who pretend to give gifts.

I put a loaded gun to your head.
I ask if you would like to sign over your car to me.
You say yes and sign the papers.

No coercion
No bribe
Just a gift from you to me

 

[Jollybear]

Umm, what? You made the argument. I pointed out that it's silly.
So, no, I don't think I made an argument. I think you did.

Calling my argument silly isnt refutation of my argument and its not making your own argument.

Can you explain how that argument you made makes any sense?

It was already explained. Its not my problem your not smart enough to comprehend it.

It is. You just haven't realized it yet.

Oh so i havent realized or understood what came from my own mind huh? You understand me better then i do?

Ya, looks like someones a little over the top arrogant. You need to come off the high horse there pale.

Someone gives a gift, expecting a favour down the road. Then when they need a favour, guess who they come calling to? (Hint: It's the guy they gave the gift to.)

A TRUE gift has no strings attached. If it did, charities would be meaningless. And if someone gives you a gift but hides there intention, thats on them, not you.

Too bad you cannot understand this simple concept.

In the eyes of the law, there is something wrong with it. Hence the reason for the impeachment inquiry. Even people on his side of the aisle see a problem with it, why? Because it's against the law!

No, its not against the law. Its against your phony interpretation of the law.

"I would like you to do us a favour though ...."
-Trump

Nothing wrong with that at all.

Neither my nor your opinion matters one whit.

Correct.

 

[Jollybear]

I put a loaded gun to your head.
I ask if you would like to sign over your car to me.
You say yes and sign the papers.

No coercion
No bribe
Just a gift from you to me

And whats your point? Trump never had a loaded gun to his head nor did he do it to ukraine.

No bribe, no push. Nothing. Nothing with his hotel or ukraine.

Your illustration is pointless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is a fine line between naivete and blind faith and willful ignorance.

or bat poop crazy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And whats your point? Trump never had a loaded gun to his head nor did he do it to ukraine.

No bribe, no push. Nothing. Nothing with his hotel or ukraine.

Your illustration is pointless.

Oh my! And right after you posted this:

"Its not my problem your not smart enough to comprehend it."

Edit:

When calling someone else 'not smart' one should take care not to have elementary school level grammatical errors.

 

[Jollybear]

Oh my! And right after you posted this:

"Its not my problem your not smart enough to comprehend it."

Why not tap? Only a stubborn loser would not tap by now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why not tap? Only a stubborn loser would not tap by now.

The voice of experience.

 

[fantome profane]

A TRUE gift has no strings attached. If it did, charities would be meaningless. And if someone gives you a gift but hides there intention, thats on them, not you.

Are you trying to suggest that Donald Trump is a charity case?

Most people understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch. And there sure as hell ain’t no such thing as free money, especially in politics!

Your mommy may give you a gift just because she loves you, but it just doesn’t work that way in the real world.

And that is why there are laws against government employees taking gifts.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Calling my argument silly isnt refutation of my argument and its not making your own argument.

I told you why I thought it was silly. You didn't even know you had made the argument and had thought it was me. Remember?

It was already explained. Its not my problem your not smart enough to comprehend it.

LOL Excuse me please Oh Great Wise One, but you didn't explain how that makes sense to you. All you did was state it as some kind of truth.

Oh so i havent realized or understood what came from my own mind huh? You understand me better then i do?

Ya, looks like someones a little over the top arrogant. You need to come off the high horse there pale.

I don't need to read your mind to see that you haven't realized how you've illustrated my point yet. That is backed by the fact that you asserted that you don't think what you said backed up my point. No mind reading required.

A TRUE gift has no strings attached. If it did, charities would be meaningless. And if someone gives you a gift but hides there intention, thats on them, not you.

Yes, and not true gifts have favours attached. Like politician's dealings with lobbyists, for example. Or foreign leaders paying the President to stay in his hotel, expecting something in return.
This is why there is an emoluments clause in the Constitution. The Founders already thought of this stuff and laid it out.

Too bad you cannot understand this simple concept.

What I can't understand is how you're being so naive about this. I can't begin to imagine how different your point of view would be if Obama had done even a fraction of what Trump has done.

No, its not against the law. Its against your phony interpretation of the law.

It's against the Constitution. It flat out states as much. Have you read it?
This is the phone call that kicked off this entire impeachment inquiry.

Nothing wrong with that at all.

But, of course there is something wrong with it. Even some Republicans agree that it's wrong. You can't withhold money that has been appropriated by Congress to a foreign government (who desperately needs it to protect themselves!) until you get personal dirt on a political opponent. Especially, when as at least two witnesses have pointed out, such an action compromises the security of the United States. The President was looking out for his personal interests over that of the country's interests and that is a big huge no-no. Notice nobody actually disputes this and instead of refuting the facts (because they can't) they instead are attacking decorated war veterans now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And whats your point? Trump never had a loaded gun to his head nor did he do it to ukraine.

No bribe, no push. Nothing. Nothing with his hotel or ukraine.

Your illustration is pointless.

Sure he did.
Give me dirt on Biden or you're not getting your military aid.
That's what went down.

 

[Jollybear]

Are you trying to suggest that Donald Trump is a charity case?

No, i was using charity to illucidate my point since skepticthinker wasnt ABLE to comprehendo.

Most people understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

I certainly HOPE most people understand that. Communists dont though.

And there sure as hell ain’t no such thing as free money, especially in politics!

Your mommy may give you a gift just because she loves you, but it just doesn’t work that way in the real world.

And how do you know there is no REAL gifts amongs leaders?

And that is why there are laws against government employees taking gifts.

And leaders coming to trumps hotel is not a gift or a bribe payment.

Think for a moment......they give money to pay for a room. Money.....for.......room. no later favor required. Payment is done.

If leader says later on down the road to trump "we paid you for room at your hotel, therefore you owe us a national favor"

Trump only would need to say 'no, i owe you nothing of the sort, you GOT YOUR ROOM you paid for. I owed you a night or two in the room. You got it. Transaction is COMPLETE! So, bug off!'

Secondly, another poster informed us already that trump offered a discount, thus making the profit lower for him.

 

[Jollybear]

I told you why I thought it was silly. You didn't even know you had made the argument and had thought it was me. Remember?

Quit the blatent, arrogant dishonesty. Its sick.

LOL Excuse me please Oh Great Wise One, but you didn't explain how that makes sense to you. All you did was state it as some kind of truth.

No, i pretty much did and have been explaining it over and over quit decently throughout this thread. Too bad you cannot comprehend it. Or mayby you just dont want to comprehend it because you just have to paint trump as a criminial.

I don't need to read your mind to see that you haven't realized how you've illustrated my point yet. That is backed by the fact that you asserted that you don't think what you said backed up my point. No mind reading required.

Not only are you arrogant but you persist in it. Amazingly. Its quite mind blowing.

What else i find amazing is that the mods are ok with this.

Yes, and not true gifts have favours attached. Like politician's dealings with lobbyists, for example. Or foreign leaders paying the President to stay in his hotel, expecting something in return.

"Foreign leaders PAYING the president to stay at his hotel, expecting something in return"

Expecting a ROOM at the hotel in return.

Let me say it again. Mayby, but probably not, it will sink in. They pay money.......in return.....for......a room.....at......hotel. Transaction DONE. And it was gonna be a discount as one poster informed us.

This is why there is an emoluments clause in the Constitution. The Founders already thought of this stuff and laid it out.

Ya and your interpretation of that clause is phony. The clause even says congress can approve of gifts. Why does it say that? Well, common sense would tell you its because of the very point i keep making over and over again. Some gifts come with no strings attached. And some things are given to pay for INNOCENT things like a hotel.

What I can't understand is how you're being so naive about this. I can't begin to imagine how different your point of view would be if Obama had done even a fraction of what Trump has done.

Oh dont give me that BS! i dont promote double standards! Dont put words in my mouth or pretend to know my intent! Because you dont AND your WRONG.

If obama had a hotel business and let leaders pay rooms, i ALSO would be just fine with it.

It's against the Constitution. It flat out states as much. Have you read it?
This is the phone call that kicked off this entire impeachment inquiry.

No, its not against the constitution. Its against YOU.

But, of course there is something wrong with it. Even some Republicans agree that it's wrong.

I dont care what republicans think. It dont matter. What matters is if there right or not. And there not. But hey, you wanna play that stupid game. Ok, ill play by those rules. Some democrats dont think trump did wrong. Look here 57% of Democrats Believe President Trump Guilty of Treason

But again, who gives a ****.

You can't withhold money that has been appropriated by Congress to a foreign government (who desperately needs it to protect themselves!) until you get personal dirt on a political opponent. Especially, when as at least two witnesses have pointed out, such an action compromises the security of the United States. The President was looking out for his personal interests over that of the country's interests and that is a big huge no-no. Notice nobody actually disputes this and instead of refuting the facts (because they can't) they instead are attacking decorated war veterans now.

Actually you can withhold aid to a foreign nation. First off no other country is INTITLED to our generosity. Secondly, we have conditions on that aid.

Look here

"Article 1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of the major types of assistance to be provided under the Treaty, including taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State. The scope of the Treaty includes not only criminal offenses, but also proceedings related to criminal matters, which may be civil or administrative in nature."

Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

So, its PERFECTLY proper for trump to ASK a favor from ukraine to look into potential corruption of the 2016 ellection AND possible corruption with biden. Just because he HAPPENED to be a competitor, does NOT make him off limits to be investigated for possible corruption.

ALSO.....if you want to say that this interferes with the ellection, i could very EASILY shoot back by saying that NO, to COVER UP looking into this, THAT tampers with an election because then your saying the american people dont have a right to fully know this candidate. And thats WRONG.

Sure he did.
Give me dirt on Biden or you're not getting your military aid.
That's what went down.

Just because you keep twisting the transcript does not make you right.

The facts are, trump did not condition aid to his favor.

Second fact, ukraine admitted no push or blackmail.

Third fact, trump did not ask to MAKE dirt on biden. He asked if he would LOOK INTO this to see if any possible corruption was there OR NOT.

Start being more honest otherwise ill look at YOU as corrupt.

 

[ecco]

And whats your point? Trump never had a loaded gun to his head nor did he do it to ukraine.

No bribe, no push. Nothing. Nothing with his hotel or ukraine.

Your illustration is pointless.

The gun he had pointed at Ukraine's head was the threat of withholding $400,000,000 in aid.
The gun he had pointed at Ukraine's head was the threat of withholding further cooperation against the Russian invasion.

No one can possibly be so naive as to not see and understand that. Therefore, there must be other reasons for you being deliberately obtuse.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Quit the blatent, arrogant dishonesty. Its sick.

What on earth are you talking about? What I said is exactly what happened.

No, i pretty much did and have been explaining it over and over quit decently throughout this thread. Too bad you cannot comprehend it. Or mayby you just dont want to comprehend it because you just have to paint trump as a criminial.

I cannot comprehend something that doesn’t make sense. Nobody can.

Trump is a criminal. Remember Trump University? He had to pay out $25 million dollars to students that he defrauded. Remember Trump’s charity? He had to shut it down after it was found out that it was guilty of ethical and legal violations, including illegal campaign contributions. Remember he used the charity to finance those two portraits of himself, for himself? Then there’s Stormy Daniels. Then there’s the emoluments clause. Then there’s obstruction of justice, outlined in the Mueller Report. Then there is asking foreign leaders to investigate his political rivals. Then yesterday, he asked China to investigate Joe Biden, on national television. Again. I could go on and on.

Not only are you arrogant but you persist in it. Amazingly. Its quite mind blowing.

Instead of just calling me names, how about responding to the content?

What else i find amazing is that the mods are ok with this.

Okay with what? Pointing out that you missed the point? That’s not a forum violation.

But by all means, please report me if you think I’ve done something wrong. Maybe let them know that you keep calling me names, while you’re at it.

Otherwise, let’s get back to the discussion.

"Foreign leaders PAYING the president to stay at his hotel, expecting something in return"

Expecting a ROOM at the hotel in return.

Let me say it again. Mayby, but probably not, it will sink in. They pay money.......in return.....for......a room.....at......hotel. Transaction DONE. And it was gonna be a discount as one poster informed us.

It’s hilarious that anyone would believe that Trump was going to give anybody a discount. If anything, he’d probably overcharge them. But that aside, how can you not see how even the appearance of impropriety is a problem? What do you think the Founders of the US who wrote the emoluments clause in the Constitution would have to say about it? Why do you think they wrote that clause in the first place?

Ya and your interpretation of that clause is phony. The clause even says congress can approve of gifts. Why does it say that? Well, common sense would tell you its because of the very point i keep making over and over again. Some gifts come with no strings attached. And some things are given to pay for INNOCENT things like a hotel.

It’s not. Maybe check what some legal scholars have to say.

Or read this ongoing case:

Blumenthal, et al. v. Trump | Constitutional Accountability Center

Even if Congress can approve of gifts, have they approved of Trump’s gifts? No? Then it’s not legal. By the way, the reason such gifts are supposed to be approved by Congress is because the three branches of government in the US are supposed to be co-equal and act as check and balance against the other two branches, in order to ensure no funny business is going on. I don’t think Trump recognizes that this power dynamic is supposed to exist.

Let’s try something else here … why do you think Trump wanted to host the G7 at his own resort? A resort that is currently struggling financially, mind you. I’d love to hear your take on that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...cc701a-6b54-11e9-be3a-33217240a539_story.html

Oh dont give me that BS! i dont promote double standards! Dont put words in my mouth or pretend to know my intent! Because you dont AND your WRONG.

Well, you keep referring to Democrats as communists, so pardon me if I find your judgment to be slightly skewed here. I didn’t put words in your mouth though, I said I can only imagine how you’d react. And that’s all I can do, given that Obama is no longer the President. I’m fully aware of your demonization of those on the left though.

If obama had a hotel business and let leaders pay rooms, i ALSO would be just fine with it.

You shouldn’t be. Because it’s not okay.

No, its not against the constitution. Its against YOU.

It has nothing to do with me, so it can’t be against me.

And I’m not the only one who thinks so. Not sure if you’ve noticed but several people from Trump’s own administration have been raising warning flags about the phone call for months now, and are currently testifying (and corroborating each other’s stories) to that effect as we speak. Not to mention the fact that Trump’s own people were concerned enough about the call that they felt had to hide the actual full transcript of the call on a secret server. Vindman testified yesterday that the paraphrased “transcript” that the White House put out was missing a couple of key pieces of information from the call.

I dont care what republicans think. It dont matter. What matters is if there right or not. And there not.

But hey, you wanna play that stupid game

. Ok, ill play by those rules. Some democrats dont think trump did wrong. Look here 57% of Democrats Believe President Trump Guilty of Treason

But again, who gives a ****.

Oh, it matters what they think. After Trump is impeached in the House, the trial moves to the Senate where they will vote whether to remove him from office or not. The tides seem to be turning.

Also, the reason I’m pointing out what they think is because they have a personal, vested interest in supporting the President at all costs, which is what they’ve been doing for almost three years. The fact that some of them are turning, as more facts come out about what Trump has done, is significant. If that tide turns, Trump is done for.

Actually you can withhold aid to a foreign nation. First off no other country is INTITLED to our generosity. Secondly, we have conditions on that aid.
Look here

"Article 1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of the major types of assistance to be provided under the Treaty, including taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State. The scope of the Treaty includes not only criminal offenses, but also proceedings related to criminal matters, which may be civil or administrative in nature."

Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

So, its PERFECTLY proper for trump to ASK a favor from ukraine to look into potential corruption of the 2016 ellection AND possible corruption with biden. Just because he HAPPENED to be a competitor, does NOT make him off limits to be investigated for possible corruption.

ALSO.....if you want to say that this interferes with the ellection, i could very EASILY shoot back by saying that NO, to COVER UP looking into this, THAT tampers with an election because then your saying the american people dont have a right to fully know this candidate. And thats WRONG.

Not for personal, political reasons. And not when the money has already been appropriated by Congress for a specific purpose. Remember, Ukraine was actively trying to fight off Russia (and still is) and desperately needed that military aid. Congress had appropriated that money for them, and Trump had no right to withhold it until his personal demands were met. One of those demands being that he wanted the President of Ukraine to publicly announce on television that the Ukrainian government was investigating Biden and his son. Gee, now why would Trump want them to do that, I wonder? And right around the time that election campaigns are kicking into gear … hmmmm

Just because you keep twisting the transcript does not make you right.

And just how do you think I am doing that?

The President of Ukraine asks where the javelins are that they were promised and directly after that Trump replies “I would like you to do us a favour though …”

Bill Taylor testified that the military aid was being withheld from Ukraine on the condition that they meet Trump’s demands about investigating Biden and announcing publicly that they were doing so. He is one of several people who raised objections about it.

The facts are, trump did not condition aid to his favor.

It’s becoming pretty clear with each passing day and each additional testimony that it was.

But I just have to ask, in your mind, what did Trump mean by “I would like you to do us a favour though” after Zelensky asked when they would be getting their javelins.

Second fact, ukraine admitted no push or blackmail.

Mick Mulvaney admitted on television last week that the holding up of the aid was linked to Trump’s demands that Ukraine investigate Biden and his son.

White House: Ukraine aid held up in part over election probe

There is evidence emerging that they did know that aid was being withheld unless Trump’s conditions were met:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/23/when-did-ukraine-know-that-trump-had-frozen-aid/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html

Third fact, trump did not ask to MAKE dirt on biden. He asked if he would LOOK INTO this to see if any possible corruption was there OR NOT.

Huh?

This whole thing is based on some loony conspiracy theory that Guiliani was trying to push all over Ukraine and the US.

Evidence is mounting that aid was withheld until Ukraine gave Trump what he wanted.

Start being more honest otherwise ill look at YOU as corrupt.

Please point out where I’ve been dishonest.

Just saying so doesn’t make it so. I want specifics.

 

[Jollybear]

The gun he had pointed at Ukraine's head was the threat of withholding $400,000,000 in aid.
The gun he had pointed at Ukraine's head was the threat of withholding further cooperation against the Russian invasion.

No one can possibly be so naive as to not see and understand that. Therefore, there must be other reasons for you being deliberately obtuse.

Theres just one problem with your statement.

The FACTS are trump did NOT pressure ukraine and he did not use aid as leverage. Its not in the call.

Ukraine admitted no push or blackmail. Thats A FACT.

 

[Jollybear]

What on earth are you talking about? What I said is exactly what happened.

Your post is getting bigger, which means mine is gonna have to get enormously bigger and i dont have enough time to respond to it all and do that. That said, ill respond to the parts that get on my nerves the most. Without further adue, lets go.

I cannot comprehend something that doesn’t make sense. Nobody can.

I can comprehend it and many of those who agree with me comprehend it too.

Trump is a criminal. Remember Trump University? He had to pay out $25 million dollars to students that he defrauded. Remember Trump’s charity? He had to shut it down after it was found out that it was guilty of ethical and legal violations, including illegal campaign contributions. Remember he used the charity to finance those two portraits of himself, for himself? Then there’s Stormy Daniels. Then there’s the emoluments clause. Then there’s obstruction of justice, outlined in the Mueller Report. Then there is asking foreign leaders to investigate his political rivals. Then yesterday, he asked China to investigate Joe Biden, on national television. Again. I could go on and on.

And thats your painted picture.

Instead of just calling me names, how about responding to the content?

Apparently you dont know the difference between a name and a discription of your actions. Too bad for you. Your arrogant and its as simple as that.

Okay with what? Pointing out that you missed the point? That’s not a forum violation.

No, its YOU that missed the point. Yet you keep misrepresenting what i told you. I correct you and yet you keep it up. That makes you stubborn and arrogant. Now, you project dishonestly on me that i missed the point? Thats some nerve you got there.

But by all means, please report me if you think I’ve done something wrong. Maybe let them know that you keep calling me names, while you’re at it.

Dont tempt me to report you. Id rather you be honest by yourself. If someone needs to correct you, it shows your already a failure. Good people dont need corrections. THINK ABOUT THAT.

Otherwise, let’s get back to the discussion.

It’s hilarious that anyone would believe that Trump was going to give anybody a discount. If anything, he’d probably overcharge them.

Thats your unknowable assumption. And i dont care about assumptions.

But that aside, how can you not see how even the appearance of impropriety is a problem? What do you think the Founders of the US who wrote the emoluments clause in the Constitution would have to say about it? Why do you think they wrote that clause in the first place?

I already answered this question but your too darn stubborn to pay attention.

The clause is not about the appearence of evil, its about bribery.

It’s not. Maybe check what some legal scholars have to say.

Or read this ongoing case:

Blumenthal, et al. v. Trump | Constitutional Accountability Center

I already gave an article about what scholars believed on the clause.

Even if Congress can approve of gifts, have they approved of Trump’s gifts? No? Then it’s not legal.

Legality and morality are two different things. And the clause has to be interpreted and those that interprete it wrong, there interpretation is not moral, but phony.

By the way, the reason such gifts are supposed to be approved by Congress is because the three branches of government in the US are supposed to be co-equal and act as check and balance against the other two branches, in order to ensure no funny business is going on. I don’t think Trump recognizes that this power dynamic is supposed to exist.

Let’s try something else here … why do you think Trump wanted to host the G7 at his own resort? A resort that is currently struggling financially, mind you. I’d love to hear your take on that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...cc701a-6b54-11e9-be3a-33217240a539_story.html

Why? Same reason all business people want costumers.

Well, you keep referring to Democrats as communists, so pardon me if I find your judgment to be slightly skewed here. I didn’t put words in your mouth though, I said I can only imagine how you’d react. And that’s all I can do, given that Obama is no longer the President. I’m fully aware of your demonization of those on the left though.

Ya and your "imagine" was incorrect. I corrected it and that should be the end of it right there.

You shouldn’t be. Because it’s not okay.

It has nothing to do with me, so it can’t be against me.

And I’m not the only one who thinks so. Not sure if you’ve noticed but several people from Trump’s own administration have been raising warning flags about the phone call for months now, and are currently testifying (and corroborating each other’s stories) to that effect as we speak. Not to mention the fact that Trump’s own people were concerned enough about the call that they felt had to hide the actual full transcript of the call on a secret server. Vindman testified yesterday that the paraphrased “transcript” that the White House put out was missing a couple of key pieces of information from the call.



Oh, it matters what they think. After Trump is impeached in the House, the trial moves to the Senate where they will vote whether to remove him from office or not. The tides seem to be turning.

Also, the reason I’m pointing out what they think is because they have a personal, vested interest in supporting the President at all costs, which is what they’ve been doing for almost three years. The fact that some of them are turning, as more facts come out about what Trump has done, is significant. If that tide turns, Trump is done for.



Not for personal, political reasons. And not when the money has already been appropriated by Congress for a specific purpose. Remember, Ukraine was actively trying to fight off Russia (and still is) and desperately needed that military aid. Congress had appropriated that money for them, and Trump had no right to withhold it until his personal demands were met. One of those demands being that he wanted the President of Ukraine to publicly announce on television that the Ukrainian government was investigating Biden and his son. Gee, now why would Trump want them to do that, I wonder? And right around the time that election campaigns are kicking into gear … hmmmm



And just how do you think I am doing that?

The President of Ukraine asks where the javelins are that they were promised and directly after that Trump replies “I would like you to do us a favour though …”

Bill Taylor testified that the military aid was being withheld from Ukraine on the condition that they meet Trump’s demands about investigating Biden and announcing publicly that they were doing so. He is one of several people who raised objections about it.



It’s becoming pretty clear with each passing day and each additional testimony that it was.

But I just have to ask, in your mind, what did Trump mean by “I would like you to do us a favour though” after Zelensky asked when they would be getting their javelins.



Mick Mulvaney admitted on television last week that the holding up of the aid was linked to Trump’s demands that Ukraine investigate Biden and his son.

White House: Ukraine aid held up in part over election probe

There is evidence emerging that they did know that aid was being withheld unless Trump’s conditions were met:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/23/when-did-ukraine-know-that-trump-had-frozen-aid/
Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense



Huh?

This whole thing is based on some loony conspiracy theory that Guiliani was trying to push all over Ukraine and the US.

Evidence is mounting that aid was withheld until Ukraine gave Trump what he wanted.



Please point out where I’ve been dishonest.

Just saying so doesn’t make it so. I want specifics.

I gave you the treaty agreement. You ignored that. Trump is perfectly proper in asking ukraine this favor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Theres just one problem with your statement.

The FACTS are trump did NOT pressure ukraine and he did not use aid as leverage. Its not in the call.

Ukraine admitted no push or blackmail. Thats A FACT.

There is testimony that he did. You should watch the news some time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave you the treaty agreement. You ignored that. Trump is perfectly proper in asking ukraine this favor.

Nope. It does not matter what a treaty says. Asking a foreign power to interfere in an election for one's own advantage is illegal.