Army officer twice reported concerns about Trump's Ukraine tactics

You conclude that is what it indicates but who knows how it will be seen after cross examination and dispute.

 

So you say that the important thing, as far as impeachment goes, is his intent. And intent is in Trump’s brain.
The only way to get that is if he comes out and point-blank admits it?

if that’s your standard for proving intent, no one would ever be convicted of a crime unless they admitted not only their actions but also their intent. That isn’t the way it works. Intent can be inferred from actions.

The actions themselves show his intent.

 

No they don't.

 

Well except the Bidens were never mention in the transcript. That is a dem clown show invention.

 

Can you think of another reason for the demand? It is a made to order campaign ad.

 

Well I'm not responsible for finding another reason but there are people who are working on it today. Did this Army officer have a recording of the conversation or is he working from his memory? There is actually a transcript of the conversation that has been released to the public.

 

If you have complete faith in every person who served in the military then you voted for McCain and currently support Gabbard, right?

 

I am curious, is this your litmus or do you feel it is someone else's?

I keep seeing this notion of illegality repeated in discourse and it seems like such a weak argument that attempts to remove ones brain from the equation. I think it is used to conflate wrongdoing and illegality, but this doesn't really hold up.

Would anyone honestly buy the argument that if Trump didn't wear his seat belt he should be impeached? What if he lied under oath? Would it matter what specifically he was lying about? Is someone who consumes alcohol during prohibition committing wrongdoing? Is it suddenly morally fine to consume alcohol the day after prohibition is repealed?

Laws change constantly. People may break current laws, and based on their rationale, you may or may not agree with their reasons for breaking them. To try and hold them up as some barometer of wrongdoing in and of themselves is intellectual laziness.

I think it is a far more relevant question to ask how you feel about the actions taken - absent any relevant laws. But more importantly, why you feel that way.

 

Assuming he is guilty of everything they accuse?
I couldn't care less if Trump tried to get dirt on Biden in order to discredit him for 2020 andv go get that dirt he promised to give them aid already approved for them by Congress. I couldn't care less if the roles were reversed and Biden was tryong to get dirt on Trump.
Ethically/Morally thos is about the equivalent of a jewish boy with a slice of bacon.

Now that would be different if he appropriated the money for them without congress.
I also don't think how I feel about it is relevant. The Democrats have been gunning for Trump since before the election. If not this. They would have dreamed up something else. They are power hungry vile beasts who will destroy anyone who gets in their way.

 

Of course his actions can be used to determine his intent. Why do you say they can’t?

 

Because they are subjective unless you know hos intentions.
What he allegedly did wasn't wrong unless he was trying to influence the 2020 election.

 

Intentions can be seen from actions.

He asked a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. The political implications are obvious.

What American national interests would be served by making that request?

 

If Biden was up to criminal activity in Ukraine that is very much a national security interest.

The intentions can sometimes be determined by actions. In this instance however there are at least 2 possible reasons for doing what he did, one ok one not.

What about the intent of the house of representatives? I don't believe their motivation is the good of thr country.

In fact i believe there intentions are damaging to our country.

 

What criminal activity could Biden possibly have been engaging in in Ukraine? Seriously, I have not heard of anything.

 

Burisma his sons employer was under investigation until Biden got the investigator fired..
That right there just screams corruption..

I am not saying it was corrupt but it is definitely worth looking into..

 

The prosecutor was FAILING to investigate corruption. That is why everyone in the west was trying to get him out, and replaced by someone who would investigate corruption. Biden was not doing this on his own, for his own personal reasons. He had the full support of the entire administration and lots of western allies. Unlike Trump. His request to Zelensky did not have the support of his own administration. So there's that.

But let's suppose, for a moment, that what you say is true. That would be a crime in America, not in Ukraine. So the right thing to do would be to investigate Biden at home, not ask a foreign country to start an investigation.

Trump was asking a foreign country to do a hatchet job on a political rival.

 

That's certainly your opinion

 

For crying out loud, do a little leg work and reading... It's not against the law (yet)

SNIP

• For months before that, the US and other countries had pressured for Shokin to be ousted because he didn't make a concerted effort to fight corruption. Biden, who was spearheading the Obama administration's Ukraine work, was at the center of these efforts, and threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees from Ukraine if Shokin wasn't fired.
• So, it's true that Biden was among those who pushed for Shokin to be fired as Ukraine's top prosecutor, but by the time this happened the probe into Burisma was dormant, according to Bloomberg.

ENDSNIP

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukr...ldings-joe-bidens-son-hunter-explained-2019-9

Bottom line, if either Biden broke UKRAINE law, it's on UKRAINE to care and investigate it. They don't and didn't.

If either Biden broke US law with a Ukraine angle, it's on US to formally ask for assistance through the DOJ.

It's fun to argue, but lame to argue without the facts...

EDIT - Here's an interesting article about how the call "transcript" was possibly created incorrectly... so you can be ahead of the news curve

https://www.businessinsider.com/whi...key-phrases-trump-call-ukraine-expert-2019-10

 

My first paragraph is documented fact, not opinion.

Second paragraph is also not opinion.

Third paragraph is the only reasonable conclusion based on the known facts.

 

Here's an interesting, if not unexpected twist, on Vindman's testimony yesterday

https://www.businessinsider.com/whi...key-phrases-trump-call-ukraine-expert-2019-10

It sounds to me like Vindman would certainly be in a prime position to be one of the people who fed info to the WB...

 

An interesting connection, I didn't know until this AM (although it seems to have been news for a couple of weeks now)

https://www.businessinsider.com/whi...key-phrases-trump-call-ukraine-expert-2019-10

SNIP
Following the call he also flagged the conversation as concerning, The Times said, and sought out the National Security Council's legal adviser, John Eisenberg — one of multiple times he said he raised the issue with his superiors. It was Eisenberg who moved the transcript to a secure server that had limited access, according to The Times.
ENDSNIP

Those in the know should know that Eisenberg was also the WH counsel who researched the Logan Act for Don McGahn as covered in detail in the Mueller report...

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/16/lawyer-ukraine-impeachment-trump-048755

 

Good grief, READ!!!

I wasn't making the case that Biden was guilty, i was making the case that it was worth looking at..

 

So, I'm supposed to believe that when a Democrat medals in Ukraine it's for good reasons that couldn't possibly be for any personal gain even though personal gain was the result but when a Republican meddles in the middle east it's corrupt and all about big oil..

Ok Got it...
I understand now Democrats are saints and Republicans are devils..
✔

Everywhere hunter biden goes people pay him lots of money to do nothing... just sayin

 

Which Biden and why??

Joe?? What would UKRAINE look at??

That he assisted in getting their prosecutor fired?? Known and they didn't care

Hunter?

SNIP
Lutsenko said. “Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws—at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing.” The Burisma Group was reportedly involved in a years-long money-laundering inquiry, though Lutsenko said Hunter was “definitely not involved” because he joined the board after the probe started.
ENDSNIP

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrai...iden-hunter-biden-are-not-under-investigation

Not because he's a presidential candidate, but because there no there there, there is NO REASON Trump needed to mention either Biden in a phone call with the new leader of Ukraine.