Well, if we could coerce people into doing things because of how it "looks", we should probably just toss out the Constitution and all the other laws.
It's almost be like arresting some black guy walking down the street because of "how it looks".

When Trump made that promise, that was before he witnessed half of the country going bat shyt crazy and running around screaming "orange man bad". Personally, I would take that as an indication to keep my cards a little closer to my chest... as well.
Again, that's just human nature. I mean the guy started off in day one of his first term with the Russiagate crap running full throttle.

Once you realize that the other side doesn't care about truth or accuracy, it's only smart to reel in your... sharing of personal information.




If folks want to get on Congress' ass to pass a law that all presidents, and who ever else... HAVE to provide their tax returns... go for it.
But getting on Trump's case for NOT doing something that no law requires he do, is pretty much.... stupid.

Oh please, half the country already hated him in early 2016, more than 6 months before he even won the election. He still kept making this promise, which conveniently fit into his "drain the swamp" narrative.
He promised his voters a level of transparency that he didnt provide once he was in the WH, and he never had any intention of following up on this promise to begin with.

Hating someone is relative. Actively trying to legally ruin someone, is a whole different thing.

no, read my post again and ask yourself HOW we allegedly "know" that zelensky "didn't even know about the money" - and then ask yourself what motive zelensky could have for saying that, even if he did - regardless if you believe it or not. do we really have to go through this exercise for every one of those 'arguments' based on zelensky's statements? we can't say for sure if he knew or not - but one thing is indisputable: for him and ukraine it makes perfect sense to claim he didn't know, and that he didn't feel pressured.

what we also DO know is that ukraine had not received the aid at that point, that trump had actively halted it (exactly a week before the call, on july 18th to be precise), and that ukraine needed it urgently and couldn't risk angering trump or refusing him any "favours".




i'm curious, what is your personal opinion on this? why did trump go out of his way to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to a country in an active conflict with russia, prior to a call with its leader?



are you seriously suggesting that it was up to zelensky to just pick a date, that he wouldn't have visited washington within days, if it really had been up to him, considering the urgency of the crimea situation, ukraines need of foreign help, and his desire for a public appearance with the american president to demonstrate their alliance? we know for a fact that even after the second call the ukrainian government (in the person of zelensky's aid andrey yermak) begged to make that meeting happen before they make the desired statement about investigating biden (that was aug.10).





that's an incredibly flawed analogy because it completely ignores the known facts about the time between the two 'arguments' - if the neighbour testified seeing one of them running around with black eyes and bruises all the time maybe. to be clear: he's not seeing one physically abuse the other, could be they are just incredibly clumsy and constantly run into stuff - but you'd have to account for the fact that the meeting never actually happened in your analogy.

i give you a better one: it's more like if that couple from your example was seeing a marriage counselor. the claim is that the wife is withholding sex because the husband doesn't buy her a diamond ring. she denies that. the counselor doesn't know who tells the truth - but in an earlier session, months ago, the wife said she'd love to sleep with him - without any preconditions. we also know that they did, in fact, NOT have sex since then. also, just a week before the second counseling session, the wife got a new lock for her chastity belt...

your analogy is incredibly flawed as well. sex in a marriage is a common and frequent event. the American president holding a state reception for the president of a small, fucked up third-rate country which is causing more trouble than anything is not.

the expected value for the number of times a normal married couple will have sex over a 3 month period is perhaps 20-40. the observed number being 0 instead cannot realistically be explained by chance or by unlucky circumstances.
the expected number of state visits an American president has with someone like the president of Ukraine over the course of a 4 year term is 1-2. the observed number across an 8 month period being 0 instead can much more plausibly be explained by things just not falling into place.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 16 2019 09:36am

1. Or you could PROVE that he DID know about the money. Everyone who has testified so far, has said Zelensky didn't know about the money.

2. Trump SAID, he withheld the money, until the Ukraine could show they had a handle on the corruption. Which, IMO, is a GOOD idea. No sense giving 400 mill to a govt. that wouldn't use it for the people.

This post was edited by Ghot on Nov 16 2019 09:49am

that directly contradicts your 'he offered it no strings attached' narrative then, especially considering the specific circumstances of the case.

yes, my analogy is flawed, that much is true, but it is still better than yours, which was my point. we really don't need one here anyway, since we're both aware of the specific circumstances - and in that context there is no way that trump's initial promise has any exculpatory qualities, given the FACTS.
literally the only way to justify that is making flawed analogies...

1. it's completely irrelevant. it's a hoop i don't even have to jump through in order for trump's behaviour to be corrupt, illegal, and impeachable. also, YOU made the claim, so it's on YOU to prove it - and it's clear that you can't. all you have is the word of someone who has every reason to claim what he did, no matter if it's true or not.

2. trump doesn't give a flying shit about corruption, he and his cronies / family are the worst offenders themselves. as a matter of fact, he pressured (by withholding javelin missiles - it's really becoming a pattern) a previous ukrainian government to STOP cooperating with the mueller investigation into manafort's ukraine dealings. the only thing he cared about is getting dirt on biden, or at least an official statement by ukraine that they would investigate him. so that is neither a legitimate nor a credible reason to withhold congressionally sanctioned military aid.

See my addition to item one.

again, learn to read, boomer. my reply doesn't change.