Your post has been reformatted to facilitate my response, item by item. Reply is inline, below:
="exGOPer, post: 4967429, member: 327981"]
So what was Ghouliani doing in Ukraine?
I don’t know what roles a Presidential attorney might play. Trump does not have a legal background and it would seem reasonable to have an attorney advise the President on legal issues concerning treaties, agreements, and the like. This does not seem as sinister as under Bush or Obama where these Presidents seemed to legally isolate themselves through various people that would carry out their dirty work. At least Trump, through Twitter and press conferences has directly let his opinions and policy stances known. Seems to me it takes someone of high integrity and belief in what they are doing to be so transparent.
Why did Trump hire the two Ukrainian criminals?
I don’t know who you are referring to or why you characterize them as criminals, especially if you are implying they are more corrupt than usual by Ukraine standards. Are you talking about diplomats? Are you talking about some people in an advisory capacity? When you say “hire”, are you talking about Trump personally paying for Ukrainian services? From what I hear, it is not easy to find non corrupt individuals in Ukraine.
Why was the aide to Ukraine held up?
If the Ukrainian aid was held up, could it not been related to the recent change in political control in Ukraine? Would it not be prudent for the President to consult, review, and determine if Russian attempts to influence Ukraine’s election were successful? Is not being sure $400,000,000,000 in aid, including US military technology would not be likely to directly benefit the Russians be considered responsible governance? Are we really talking about Trump “interfering” with Biden and friends money tree?
Why was the transcript of the call that is being hidden moved to a secret server?
How would you know about a hidden call if it was hidden? How would you know if this call was moved to a secret server? Although you need to do better than this, I’ll still entertain this thought. If there was a change in the status quo of how relevant data was stored without reasonable justification where legal requirements apply, there should be an investigation. If a investigation on this is warranted, perhaps Hillary can assist.
Why won't Trump allow WH officials to testify?
I would imagine to minimize legal exposure. Given the prior conduct of the Democrats of using prior witness statements and a loose interpretation of what they say to craft perjury changes, I would say this is sound policy. It appears the impeachment proceedings are more about looking for a crime rather than about an actual crime being committed. Congress appears to be abusing its power for political gain. The Democratic controlled Congress appears to be trying to diminish the checks and balances put forth by this country’s founders by minimizing the role of the Executive Branch. The Democrats appear to be attempting to circumvent our Constitution and individual rights to create an environment where unjustified charges could thrive and normal legal defenses moot.
It's very to clear things up if these were hearsay or not, just release the evidence and testify under oath.
The reason there is a legal requirement that search and seizure require probable cause is to avoid the hunting expedition that Congress seems to be employing now.
Our laws must be respected and applied consistently and evenly. This includes Trump and the Office of the Presidency.
Can't have it both way.
False equivalence; ridiculous characterization.
Try again.
