Those are not hard questions to answer.

The rundown on the scurrilous Trumpworld lying and rumor-mongering about Hunter Biden and Ukraine. And another.

Also another worthwhile documentary of Trump's treason from William Saletan in Slate.

The phone call transcript released by the White House was doctored.

Here's a leak of the real transcript.

If you caught your wife paying off her lover in order to silence him, how would you feel about that?

Why does he make disparaging remarks towards women and their vaginas?

Trump does not seem to be able to see beyond his own experiences. Hunter Biden made millions of dollars in the Ukraine therefore he must be corrupt.

There’s no evidence he made millions. He got paid normal fees as a director of resources company - the ‘millions of dollars’ is part of the spin. Then the whole story got seized on by the Q-ANON lunatic fringe, and Trump seized on it, as a drowning man grasps at straws. Read those links I posted if you want to know the story.

Odd. After reading the transcript you shared with us, and after that brilliant tweet you just shared with us, I'm more convinced that Trump did something dodgey and was up to no good than I was beforehand. It's had the opposite effect to what you were intending by sharing these things with us. And it was the same thing with that quote about arresting people. This is evidence which works against you, not in your favour.

Except he lied about more than just a confusion of dates:

1. He lied about when he was contacted, while it was clear he was contacted precisely because of his position as advisor to the Trump campaign. He got the dates wrong but pretty incredible;
2. He knew about the many connections of this professor with Russian government officials but said he was a nobody;
3. He said he had superficial contact with a female Russian before he became campaign advisor to Trump when in reality he tried to leverage that contact to get bring the campaign in contact with Russian officials.

See: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Statement_of_the_offense.filed.pdf

The whistleblower's complaint: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf

Thank you kindly for that Michael.

Just to test his so-called veracity relating to the pursuit of his [Trump']s concerns viz. Biden, isn't there another mechanism or avenue for which he could pursue his concerns? Another Agency to investigate Biden?

If there is, then this surely adds to the likelihood or high probability that Trump's intention was, to once again, have foreign leaders interfere with our election process.

I suppose you let the Ukrainians worry about laws broken in Ukraine, and leave it to the DOJ to determine if any possible crimes involving U.S. citizens warrants U.S. involvement.

That’s hilarious.

Hearing of DNI Macguire is ongoing now,

Odd. After reading the transcript you shared with us, and after that brilliant tweet you just shared with us, I'm more convinced that Trump did something dodgey and was up to no good than I was beforehand. It's had the opposite effect to what you were intending by sharing these things with us. And it was the same thing with that quote about arresting people. This is evidence which works against you, not in your favour.

What would that “something dodgey” be?

I'll let S answer...

"something untrustworthy" would be obvious. (Does that make sense to you?)

Are you going to vote for Trump again? If so, why? Will you do your homework this time, or just blindly vote?

The reason I ask is because you have not been able to answer any of my concerns.

"something untrustworthy" would be obvious. (Does that make sense to you?)

And what would that be?

Did you read the whistle blower's transcripts? Are you not concerned?

There is a whistleblower complaint. I’m not aware of any whistleblower transcript. Where are those?

Oh shucks, Michael was kind enough to post it:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf

Please let us know if you have concerns(?)

And then I'll ask you some more questions.

Yes that’s not a transcript. It’s a complaint. I have read the whistleblower complaint.

Okay great...thank you. Can you tell us if you have any concerns? And if not, why not.

I have no concerns for a variety of reasons:

1. Presidents have vast constitutional powers.
2. The president’s requests were about previous elections and administrations, not future elections.
3. The allegations against the president have been persistent since the beginning, and persistently wrong or unproven.
4. Investigations into Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election is ongoing. Asking favors regarding cooperation with these investigations seems a matter of prudence, not deceit.
5. The Ukrainian president stated he was not being pushed, despite the claims of the whistleblower.

What a slime ball Schiff is. It’s painful to watch him twist himself into knots. This is the same guy who was duped by Russian comedians into believing Ukrainian politicians had nudes of Trump, and promised to work with them for that info.

That’s hilarious. — NOS4A2

You find it hilarious to observe the separation of powers and respect foreign sovereignty?

3. The allegations against the president have been persistent since the beginning, and persistently wrong or unproven. — NOS4A2

Attention readers, this is a false statement. In fact most allegations regarding Trump's behaviour were objectively true, but because intent is harder to establish than the objective facts, and because of constitutional limitations, he has not been formally inducted for any crimes.

You find it hilarious to observe the separation of powers and respect foreign sovereignty?

No I found the joke hilarious.

Attention readers, this is a false statement. In fact most allegations regarding Trump's behaviour were objectively true, but because intent is harder to establish than the objective facts, and because of constitutional limitations, he has not been formally inducted for any crimes.

A simple counterexample would suffice and I will admit my hasty generalization.

Anyways, @Michael @3017amen

In light of the content of the Whistleblower complaint, the content of which has of course been known to the White House, the decision to release the transcript of the call now makes much more sense.

Because of the sequence of reports, we are invited to read the Whistleblower complaint in light of the transcript (rather than the other way around). This way, it can be made to look as if the transcript represents the maximum extent of any wrongdoing hinted at in the complaint. And since the transcript contains inappropriate, but not obviously criminal behaviour, the defense will concentrate on shifting the limits of appropriate presidential behaviour and obfuscate the intent behind it, as has been done before.

So basically, I suspect the plan is to discredit the complaint as unjustified exaggeration of the transcript.

What was inappropriate in the transcript?

A simple counterexample would suffice and I will admit my hasty generalization. — NOS4A2

Read the Mueller report. 10 possible instances of obstruction of justice.

Read the Mueller report. 10 possible instances of obstruction of justice.

I’ve read the Mueller report. “Possible instances” doesn’t count as true or proven.