There is plenty of denying that the military aid was about winning points in the domestic election. — NOS4A2
In fact, as the transcript shows, it pertained to previous elections and previous officials in pervious administrations. So the part about it being about the 2020 election is completely fabricated. — NOS4A2
Don't you think that having the president of Ukraine make a public investigation our of Biden's son would benefit Trump in the upcoming election? It would be of undeniable benefit. Do you deny that?
Prosecuted by a foreign government? No one asked for such a thing. . — NOS4A2
But, can we both agree that if it is true that Trump tried to incite a Ukranian investigation into an American citizen, that there is a serious problem in an of itself? — VagabondSpectre
I’m going back into hermit mode — Roke
That is what you need to agree is the problem. — Wayfarer
Americans are, by and large, feckless and too addicted to their screens to revolt. A fantasy revolt is enough to give them a narcissist-charge. That's what they live on: a fantastic narcissism; that's what takes the edge off their anxiety and gives their lives a numbing dumbed-down shadow of meaning.the term "Second American Revolution" is probably something we're going to be hearing in the future. — VagabondSpectre
Americans are, by and large, feckless and too addicted to their screens to revolt. — ZzzoneiroCosm
The evidence makes it pretty clear that Trump wanted actual investigations to be opened (by the Ukranian administration/government). The whole "I want him in a public box" thing is really unambiguous. Even if Trump didn't expect real investigations from Ukraine, he at least wanted the appearance of them (and if that is the case, then our discussion would shift to focusing on election and foreign policy interference)
Be careful, you’re making up quotes and attributing them to someone who never said them. That was something expressed by Taylor, quoting Sondland who was interpreting Trump’s desires. The fact that people are misquoting double-hearsay only attests to the fabricated nature of these accusations. — NOS4A2
Could it be possible that Trump wanted Zelensky to do the right thing, instead of this convoluted story about political dirt and future elections? — NOS4A2
On Thursday morning, the White House released a rough transcript of Donald Trump’s first phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on 21 April.
In it, the two exchanged pleasantries. Trump congratulated Zelensky on his election and suggested the possibility of a White House visit. Zelensky invited the US president to his inauguration in Kyiv, and plugged his country’s delicious food and hospitality. Trump agreed, citing his experience with Ukrainians in his days as a beauty pageant impresario.
The White House summary of the conversation released at the time, however, paints a different picture. It said Trump “noted” that the Ukrainian election had been conducted in a fair and open process. It said he “underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”.
And it said Trump had told Zelensky that the two would work together “to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption”.
None of those things happened.
It raises questions about why Trump didn’t talk about corruption or endorse Ukraine’s territorial integrity in the call, particularly given Ukraine’s history of prosecutorial misconduct and Russian support for insurgents fighting Ukrainians in the nation’s eastern border region. The summary may have been what the US foreign policy team wanted the president to emphasise, but he did not.
The White House regularly produces summaries of the president’s conversations with foreign leaders. The disparities between the April Ukrainian summary and the actual conversation may leave many Americans – and foreign leaders – wondering how much credence to place in those documents.
To be fair, I'm not making up quotes, I'm quoting sworn testimony. Taylor's understanding was that the military aid hinged on investigations. This is backed up the summarized transcript the WH released ("I would like you to do us a favor though"). But why would Taylor have that understanding if it didn't represent WH intentions? Why would Sondland interpret Trump's desires that way? Was he just confused?
The big test is if a candidate from the other side did the exact same things, would you want them to be held accountable? Would you give them this much leeway? Would you hold them to the same standard?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.