So much evidence, it had to be sent to House probers in several batches.

It is true with MPS, it all gets corrupted passing his ears & eyes so what comes back out (though he has in his mind put maximum effort into diligent analysis) is near incomprehensible to the observer as a response to the input.

The world writes 400 million in aid to Ukraine and we get "Is not being sure $400,000,000,000 in aid" in response. Millions became billions as it entered his head.

Anyway...

Interesting article here on Trump's "aid".

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/15/trump-resisted-ukraine-sale-javelin-antitank-missile/

As U.S. President Donald Trump’s congressional allies seek to defend him from a rapidly escalating impeachment inquiry, they have repeatedly pointed to the fact that it was Trump, not his predecessor President Barack Obama, who signed off on providing Ukraine with lethal weapons such as Javelin anti-tank missiles.

But current and former officials who were privy to the decision in December 2017 to provide the missiles to Ukraine told Foreign Policy that Trump had been reluctant to go ahead with the move and only did so when aides persuaded him that it could be good for U.S. business.

“He wanted to know if the Ukrainians would pay us back,” said a former senior official with direct knowledge of the decision to provide Ukraine with a grant to buy the powerful anti-tank Javelin missiles. It is not clear what Trump’s views were on other aspects of U.S. military aid to Ukraine.

Trump is accused by Democrats of withholding military aid to Ukraine in an effort to further his political interests. But his Republican allies have pointed out that aid was held up for only 55 days, and Trump delivered more to the Ukrainians than Obama had. During the second day of public impeachment hearings on Friday, congressional Republicans sat in front of a large black-and-white sign that read, “President Trump gave Ukraine missiles.”

Continues.. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/15/trump-resisted-ukraine-sale-javelin-antitank-missile/
 
Reply is inline below:

=“exGOPer, post: 4967558, member: 327981"]

Whatever happened to 'I will hire the best people'?
Nothing. Trump attempts to hire the best people, but few have the skills, knowledge, or integrity to meet his exceptionally high standards. Ever see The Apprentice?


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/us/politics/lev-parnas-igor-fruman-arrested-giuliani.html

Why was the aide to Ukraine held up?
Aide as in person? Or aid? If mean mean Aide, I don’t know of this. If it is aid, this has been asked and answered.




And magically the day after the whistleblower report became public, all those concerns went away? Can you explain how that worked?
I’m not following your characterization of events. Need more specifics to try to answer your question.



I didn't say any of it was illegal, I am saying that they had something to hide, something as simple as a transcript of an innocent phone call. Why?
I have no knowledge of what your are talking about. If you want my opinion, please provide more details.



Yes, the guy who won't make his finances public, guy who ran a scam university and recently admitted to running a laundering scheme will never commit a crime. No sir, Democrats are crazy to look into this saint of a man.
I’m all for financial disclosure requirements. If these requirements are applied evenly, consistently, and are enforced fairly. When I say equally, I mean all politicians should be required to supply their financial information on a periodic basis. Trump deserves the hit to his credibility over his University scam. However, it does not define him. Your characterization that Trump admitted to a laundering scheme does not seem credible, but I don’t know the specific accusation you may be talking about. A person who has either broken the law in the past or who has had ethics issues in the past still has Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Looking at Democrat’s recent history in supporting false accusers, creating false narratives, and applying economic pressure or intimidation tactics against those with differing opinions means the investigatory spotlight should be on Democrats. Constitutional and governance issues should take precedence over possible common technical violations. It seems likely at least part of the Democrats investigation efforts revolve around depleting investigatory resources into their wrongdoing in order to stall investigation into their probable criminal conduct.



The probable cause was extorting a foreign nation with taxpayer money appropriated by Congress to - and listen to this part clearly - that they ANNOUNCE an investigation into Joe Biden, did you get that? Not actually do an investigation but just ANNOUNCE.
Speaking as a non lawyer here, I interpret probable cause being a list of reasons to believe a crime has been committed that addresses all of the elements of the crime needed for conviction. I have not yet heard what Trump is being accused of so I don’t know what elements need to be proven before he can be legitimately convicted. Further, from what little I’ve heard, the possible charges may revolve around technical violations that other administrations have routinely been associated with.

Tell me the logic of that.



All you did was claim ignorance and gave bullshit deflection defending a man who can't even count on his wife for support without paying her off. Must be that conservative men of character you keep talking about.
Trump’s superior claim of character versus the Democrats would have to be based on him trying to get things done while maintaining a transparent view on his policies. Democrats fail because they are about obstruction of Government processes for political purposes, obstructing Constitutional rights to deny defendant legal rights to their false accusations, and misallocating public resources for political purposes.

I’m in class today, so excuse my slow response to your questioms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top