Donald Trump is digging his own grave

[Callisto]

Assertion based on nothing in the statement



Not in the transcript at all. Another assertion



POTUS can cut off foreign aid by a simple order. Obama did it in 2013. He didn't restart it until 2015. Both done without Congress being involved.

Wrong, plain and simple.

Firstly, it IS in the transcript. It can't be any plainer.

Secondly, he didn't tell Zelensky the US had decided not to provide aid. The call was to confirm aid had been approved. What he did do was indicate he wanted a favor first which was not anything the aid was to be contingent on. After Trump got caught, he released the aid as he should have in the first place.

There's no way to claim anything else. This was simply another abuse of office by a cretin who wants to be an autocrat.

 

[Jollybear]

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you genuinely not understand what transpired?

Neither. I do understand, but its not your view.

There is ZERO ambiguity on Trump's quid pro quo. None. Period. Fullstop.

Oh really? I gauss thats why the justice department thinks trump never did wrong, and many of the repubs think no wrong and little under half the poles of americans also think he didnt do wrong. But, ya, no ambiguity on what your saying he did. Sure, none, of course (sarcasm).

This is directly from the transcript that Trump had released, quoted IN ORDER:

President Zelenskyy: I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though

Zelensky is acknowledging the U.S. government had already approved the aid. Trump had one job, to officially inform him the already approved aid. Instead of responding with some form of "you're welcome," he instead says, "I would like you to do us a favor though". That's intent to withhold already approved aid unless he personally gets something else. Not the government, him. Had it been a legit condition, it would have been established before hand during the decision making process in whether to extend aid and agreed to then. Instead, Trump treats the aid as though it's something he's personally giving in exchange for a personal favor.

No.....your reading this reasoning into the transcript. Heres what trump said

"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it."

And

"Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."

Then President Zelensky said

"Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation."

No pressure here at all.

Also in summery, trump talked about other countries should give aid as well.

There is not to spin on this, there is nothing to debate. It's an abuse of the office.

Your right, there is nothing to debate, the democrats are abusing there offices.

Coercion isn't simply overt threat, it's often couched in non-threatening language.

Except that the ukraine president admits he was not pushed or blackmailed and he did not even know the aid was on hold. And if he was pressured, just admitting so would get trump in deeper trouble and then hed get the aid ANYWAY!

If he was wronged, he surely would have admitted it.

The harm is that had Trump succeeded, thousands of lives were at jeopardy in Ukraine. They need that aid for javelin missiles which are significant in their resistance to Russian encroachment which is far more powerful than Ukraine.

Trump wasnt trying to not give aid, trump said he was trying to pressure other countries to help and he was wanting to make sure ukraine would fight corruption.

There is no excuse for denying the nature of what took place.

Its a legitimate defense im making here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neither. I do understand, but its not your view.



Oh really? I gauss thats why the justice department thinks trump never did wrong, and many of the repubs think no wrong and little under half the poles of americans also think he didnt do wrong. But, ya, no ambiguity on what your saying he did. Sure, none, of course (sarcasm).



No.....your reading this reasoning into the transcript. Heres what trump said

"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it."

And

"Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."

Then President Zelensky said

"Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation."

No pressure here at all.

Also in summery, trump talked about other countries should give aid as well.



Your right, there is nothing to debate, the democrats are abusing there offices.



Except that the ukraine president admits he was not pushed or blackmailed and he did not even know the aid was on hold. And if he was pressured, just admitting so would get trump in deeper trouble and then hed get the aid ANYWAY!

If he was wronged, he surely would have admitted it.



Trump wasnt trying to not give aid, trump said he was trying to pressure other countries to help and he was wanting to make sure ukraine would fight corruption.



Its a legitimate defense im making here.

Nope. You just need to get into a shorter river.

 

[Callisto]

Neither. I do understand, but its not your view.

Apparently, you don't understand if you genuinely don't think the transcript shows abuse of power.

Oh really? I gauss thats why the justice department thinks trump never did wrong, and many of the repubs think no wrong and little under half the poles of americans also think he didnt do wrong. But, ya, no ambiguity on what your saying he did. Sure, none, of course (sarcasm).

ORLY? He's under investigation for a myriad of offenses, including Ukraine and has a multitude of litigation waiting upon his removal from office. It's too bad you folks insist on swimming up and down de'nial.

No.....your reading this reasoning into the transcript. Heres what trump said
"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it."
And
"Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."

Then President Zelensky said

"Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation."

No pressure here at all.

Again, quid pro quo. The time to have legitimately ask for favors was when the aid was being planned abdabdaagreed upon. NOT, I repeat, NOT after the terms had been decided upon that finalized what aid, if any, would be extended. No, he didn't take a threatening tone, one isn't needed to be threatening. Look up "veiled threat".

Also in summery, trump talked about other countries should give aid as well.

Irrelevant. Opining on other countries' efforts is neither here or there. The point remains, the aid had already been determined & approved. Period. Trump's only purpose was to officially convey that aid. Commenting on other countries was superfluous and has no bearing on what the US had agreed to do. He's not in trouble for commenting on other countries, he's in trouble for attempting to hold back already approved aid to get something he wanted.

You right, there is nothing to debate, the democrats are abusing there offices.

Deflection.

Excep that the ukraine president admits he was not pushed or blackmailed and he did not even know the aid was on hold. And if he was pressured, just admitting so would get trump in deeper trouble and then hed get the aid ANYWAY!

Try again.

Trump wasnt trying to not give aid, trump said he was trying to pressure other countries to help and he was wanting to make sure ukraine would fight corruption.

Its a legitimate defense im making here.

Uhm, no. Firstly, if this was such a concern, then why wasn't it addressed before, at anytime prior to aid bring approved. Secondly, lets see if you have an answer for this because Trump did not when pointedly asked: if he is concerned about "corruption", what else did he ask Ukraine to investigate. Funny how he's concerned about rampant corruption yet the only thing he focused on are the Bidens and couldn't call up one other thing when called on it.

 

[Shad]

Wrong, plain and simple.

Firstly, it IS in the transcript. It can't be any plainer.

There was nothing about withholding funds. Try again.

Secondly, he didn't tell Zelensky the US had decided not to provide aid.

Ergo you just contradicted yourself above....

The call was to confirm aid had been approved. What he did do was indicate he wanted a favor first which was not anything the aid was to be contingent on. After Trump got caught, he released the aid as he should have in the first place.

POTUS can request investigations with Ukraine's government by treaty signed and pass under Clinton. No threat about aid was made. Try again.

Biden made a threat on video which was not contingent upon aid. Your argument makes Biden corrupt. You are reading what you want into the transcript but good thing I can read the transcript for myself. Try again.

There's no way to claim anything else. This was simply another abuse of office by a cretin who wants to be an autocrat.

Assertion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was nothing about withholding funds. Try again.




Ergo you just contradicted yourself above....



POTUS can request investigations with Ukraine's government by treaty signed and pass under Clinton. No threat about aid was made. Try again.

Biden made a threat on video which was not contingent upon aid. Your argument makes Biden corrupt. You are reading what you want into the transcript but good thing I can read the transcript for myself. Try again.



Assertion.

Breaking up a post excessively is always a bad idea. If you had followed this Trump had been already withholding funds. The president of the Ukraine knew this. Why would he need to mention what everyone knew that he was doing. So no, he did not contradict himself.

And the POTUS cannot ask leaders of foreign countries to start an investigation into a political rival. Especially when using a not too heavily veiled threat. Your 'logic' is appalling.

 

[Ouroboros]

POTUS can request investigations with Ukraine's government by treaty signed and pass under Clinton.

That's the first time I hear about that. That's f-ed up. If that's the case, and the treaty is still valid, yeah, then Trump might be validated. How the heck didn't anyone bring this up? State department? DoJ? GOP? FOX news? Trump himself? Giuliani? If they based their investigation on this treaty, the could have stopped the whole chaos by just revealing this information from get go. Stonewalling and all these theatrics, unnecessary. Maybe Trump wanted to be impeached?

Here's the document, if anyone is interested in reading:
https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.

 

[Shad]

That's the first time I hear about that. That's f-ed up. If that's the case, and the treaty is still valid, yeah, then Trump might be validated. How the heck didn't anyone bring this up?

People have in the media but it is ignored.

State department? DoJ? GOP? FOX news?

All have.

The DoJ actually started a probe a few months ago as the Mueller report contains information that Ukraine officials were dumping money and providing information towards Hillary during the election. This actually has been known since 2017 but was ignored by Russiagate hype.

Trump himself?

No

Giuliani?

Yes

If they based their investigation on this treaty, the could have stopped the whole chaos by just revealing this information from get go.

Like I said the treaty was pointed out but dismissed by MSM as MSM is political more than news.

Stonewalling and all these theatrics, unnecessary. Maybe Trump wanted to be impeached?

I do not think the goal was to force the issue. Beside the Dems haven't voted on impeachment thus the inquiry is actually a farce. Without a vote the minority party has no power to call witnesses, present evidence, subpoena, etc. The Dem control all of it getting to do whatever they want without being challenged by the GOP in the House.

 

[Ouroboros]

People have in the media but it is ignored.

Strange that Fox didn't pick that up.

All have.

I have followed the news on the development of this, and yes, even read Fox news, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that DoJ, Barr, or any senator mention the treaty. Do you have a link to a comment or interview?

The DoJ actually started a probe a few months ago as the Mueller report contains information that Ukraine officials were dumping money and providing information towards Hillary during the election. This actually has been known since 2017 but was ignored by Russiagate hype.

So where was the treaty mentioned? I really haven't seen any reference to the treaty the past 2 weeks, until now. It might have been mentioned in the Mueller investigation, but I didn't follow that one as closely.

No

Yes

Giuliani mentioned the treaty? I must've missed it.

Still, Trump and Barr are the ones that should have hammered in that this was all done under the treaty. But they haven't. If you know otherwise, I'm interested in reading an interview or tweet that says otherwise. And I'm still confused that Fox didn't pick this up and really had it on the front page every day.

Like I said the treaty was pointed out but dismissed by MSM as MSM is political more than news.

MSM? MS Money?

I do not think the goal was to force the issue. Beside the Dems haven't voted on impeachment thus the inquiry is actually a farce. Without a vote the minority party has no power to call witnesses, present evidence, subpoena, etc. The Dem control all of it getting to do whatever they want without being challenged by the GOP in the House.

Like I've said before, I think they will impeach, i.e. the House will do their thing, but when it goes to the Senate, no action will be taken. Impeachment isn't as scary for Trump as he seems to act like. Impeachment is an accusation by the House, but then the Senate has to decide what actions have to be taken, and they have full right to just dismiss it.

 

[Callisto]

There was nothing about withholding funds. Try again.

False and anyone not bogged in partisanship knows it.

Ergo you just contradicted yourself above....

Another inept deflection. Ergo, wrong again.

POTUS can request investigations with Ukraine's government by treaty signed and pass under Clinton. No threat about aid was made. Try again.

Another failed attempt to skew reality. Fact remains he did not ask for corruption to be investigated, in fact he interferred with corruption investigations that had been under way when he pushed for Yovanovitch's removal, someone who was already, actually investigating widespread corruption and called out the Ukraine's prosecutor's poor record on fighting corruption. Now Yovanovitch is testifying in the impeachment hearings.

Biden made a threat on video which was not contingent upon aid. Your argument makes Biden corrupt. You are reading what you want into the transcript but good thing I can read the transcript for myself.

Wrong. Stop regurgitating right wingnut conspiracy delusions. Try again.

 

[Shad]

Strange that Fox didn't pick that up.

I have followed the news on the development of this, and yes, even read Fox news, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that DoJ, Barr, or any senator mention the treaty. Do you have a link to a comment or interview?

Fox did. Fox is has little credibility and often acts as the GOP PR department so people either ignore it or dismiss it. I dismiss a lot of what Fox says too so its not out of the ordinary.

Gregg Jarrett: Ukraine is just the latest ploy in 'witch hunt' to drive Trump from White House

So where was the treaty mentioned? I really haven't seen any reference to the treaty the past 2 weeks, until now. It might have been mentioned in the Mueller investigation, but I didn't follow that one as closely.

It has been mentioned since day 1 of the transcript release.

Giuliani mentioned the treaty? I must've missed it.

Sorry my bad. He reference the constitution. Hannity brought up the treaty in an interview.


Rudy Giuliani defends Trump's Ukraine call and laments abrupt resignation of 'very patriotic' Kurt Volker

Still, Trump and Barr are the ones that should have hammered in that this was all done under the treaty. But they haven't. If you know otherwise, I'm interested in reading an interview or tweet that says otherwise. And I'm still confused that Fox didn't pick this up and really had it on the front page every day.

This is the sticking point. Trump mentions both Barr and Giulani. He made the request and directs Ukraine to talk to both. Barr has been appointed to government while Giulani has not. Barr is covered not only by the treaty but by the very act that created the office along with the acts that expanded it's power. (AG was once just an adviser with no DOJ department at all. Both evolved over time gaining more and more control over law enforcement to what both are now) Toss in constitution empowers POTUS to uphold law. Giulani is Trump's lawyer not POTUS' lawyer. There is a separation between person and office here. Giulani is using rights of a citizen to defend Trump. A major issue is the legal separation between the citizen and office along with how that relates to communications and information exchange between Giulani and the DoJ. Think of it this way. If the DoJ went after a POTUS it can not be the defense lawyer for POTUS without major issues. First off there is the obvious conflict of interest due to command structure (See; Nixon). There is the conflict of interest in the same department representing the State and accused which is an easy ticket for appeal. Both sides could claim leadership ordered or undermined the other side. This is more of less how Guilani is representing the situation. He is a defense lawyer for a person not office. I have no idea if there was even consideration or even foresight of such a situation. At best the Appointment Clause needs to be considered.

The FEC ruling has no teeth and will not withstand appeal. The only way the FEC ruling stands is if Biden is not charged in a new investigation, one that actually happens. Otherwise politicians that commit crimes involving internationals or other nations can merely run for office to gain immunity from a federal investigation. FEC does not have any such power.

MSM? MS Money?

Mainstream media.

Like I've said before, I think they will impeach, i.e. the House will do their thing, but when it goes to the Senate, no action will be taken.

Dems have been screaming impeachment since day 1. After 3 years of Russia they got nothing but a call to Ukraine. The Senate isn't going to convict.

Impeachment isn't as scary for Trump as he seems to act like.

I think he is using it to benefit himself with his base and independents. After Russia producing nothing impeachable it make the Dems look foolish. More so he can try to redirect focus from Dem candidate platforms to impeachment due to media ratings.

Impeachment is an accusation by the House, but then the Senate has to decide what actions have to be taken, and they have full right to just dismiss it.

GOP controls the Senate enough to prevent a 2/3 vote. Trump has to have done something like Nixon for GOP to flip. It is not in their interest to remove him unless they have to. He is popular with the GOP base, he is the incumbent and the GOP has worse candidates than the Dems to replace him.

 

[Shad]

False and anyone not bogged in partisanship knows it.

Assertion.

Another inept deflection. Ergo, wrong again.

Read your mistake and the definition you provided. Since he never said X for Y you just refuted your own assertion. Hilarious.

Another failed attempt to skew reality. Fact remains he did not ask for corruption to be investigated, in fact he interferred with corruption investigations that had been under way when he pushed for Yovanovitch's removal, someone who was already, actually investigating widespread corruption and called out the Ukraine's prosecutor's poor record on fighting corruption. Now Yovanovitch is testifying in the impeachment hearings.

Wrong. By treaty and the Constitution he can. FEC does not make a candidate immune to investigations nor request for investigation. It does not make a candidate immune to all law. Federal law handles international relation and investigations.

Biden was going to threatening withhold aid for something that the aid didn't cover. By your own definition he is corrupt. VP does not have the authority to cut aid.

Wrong. Stop regurgitating right wingnut conspiracy delusions. Try again.

Except he did make the threat and bragged about it. Try again.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yesterday my neighbor came over. This was our exchange....

Neighbor: I was hoping to borrow your lawnmower this weekend.

Me: I need you to do me a favor though. A lot of people in the neighborhood are talking about the tall weeds at the end of my driveway. They're saying it makes the neighborhood look bad. So if you could look into that....​

According to the Team Trump people here, there is absolutely no reason for my neighbor to ever think his getting to borrow my lawnmower is contingent on him taking care of the weeds at the end of my driveway.

That's just how stupid their position is.

 

[Callisto]

. Blah, blah, regurgitate.

I appreciate your need to save your blind support of Trump but it's laughable at this point. Particularly the typical Trumpian tactics of deflection and what aboutism.

If you want to argue, it's extremely helpful to know what you're talking about and not try to blur the edges with partisan claptrap. I'm not a Democrat and could not possibly care less about tactics used to ruffle Dems. I have zero patience for partisan nonsense, from either camp. So, there goes your distorted Biden what aboutisms. So sorry, thanks for playing.

So let's recap what the facts of the matter. If you can't deal with them, that's ok, feel free to stop replying so not to further look silly. I won't be offended and have respect for some who knows when to stop.

There is no legitimate denying that Trump sought an illegal quid pro quo which is why so many have spoken out and he's under investigation for it. As Trump plotted to have Ukraine investigate his political rival, he had to move people out of the way who were actually doing their job to fight actual corruption. Anyone inclined to raise the alarm on what Trump was attempting, and/or simply would not conspire with him - such as Yovanovitch. So Trump minions Giuliani and Trump Jr. started a campaign to denounce her. That's where Parnas and Fruman come in. Giuliani's henchman that Trump lies having any knowledge of. Despite evidence he's met with them, as has Don Jr.

Yovanovitch was proactively ferreting out corruption within the Ukraine and calling out its prosecutor. That is, until Giuliani and Trump Jr. slurred her with fabricated allegations provided by Parnas & Fruman and Trump had her removed. Funny, she allegedly wasn't doing her job, yet she wasn't replaced with someone who supposedly could and would. Hm m

Instead, per Trump's personal request, someone else was put in Kiev, Gordon Sondland, to handle the scheme Trump and Giuliani cooked up to create dirt on Biden. Yet he's not the new Ambassador to Ukraine, but was made Ambassador to the EU... yet spending most of his time in Kiev. Ukraine is not in the EU. When asked about it by reporters he mumbled Trump had given him "special assignments". Namely, as we now know, to push Ukraine to stir up dirt on Biden - but no other "corruption". Per Sondland's admission, he spoke with Trump directly moments before Trump's call with Zelensky about his efforts to push for a Biden "investigation". Hmmmm

Note, Sondland has no experience as a diplomat. He only got the position because he donated $1M to Trump's inaugural committee through a bunch of anonymous LLCs to conceal his identity as the donor.

Trump then tried to extract a quid pro quo from Zelensky, thinking his bases are covered.

Furthermore, Sondland also told Sen. Ron Johnson (R Wisconsin) that Trump wanted a quid pro quo with Ukraine and he was not planning on giving them the already promised military aid unless they investigated Biden. Not to mention evidence for the scheme via the seized text messages among Volker, Sondland, and Taylor.

But it didn't stop there, besides Yovanovitch, Trump also removed WH staff who work on budget issues related to military aid... after they too voiced concerns over the legality of blocking the aid to Ukraine. People who are experts in the field and would certainly know what's legal and what's not. They were sacked and Trump gave Michael Duffy, a politically appointed official, the "authority" to keep the aid on hold - a move that is unprecedented. As with Yovanovitch, more career personnel with decades of precise experience and knowledge in dealing with a specific job - and what is legally permissible - are replaced by a Trump crony. Hmmm.


tldr; So, Trump supposedly wants "corruption investigated" yet removed the Ambassador to Ukraine who was doing just that, then removed White House staffers well versed in the legality of when and how a president can withhold approved aid. He doesn't appoint someone new to the positions who are qualified to do so. Instead, appoints flunkies and campaign contributors to over see "special assignments" and obfuscate his illegal activity.

Yeah, nothing shady there. "Bit Obama! But Biden! But Hillary!" Fact is the GOP has had years and plenty of opportunity to ferret out any wrongdoing, even times of controlling both the House & Senate and yet... y'all got nuthin'. So give it a rest and deal with the fact the current slimeball is corrupt on levels never seen before.

You keep telling yourself he's not but most Americans are not buying it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Furthermore, Sondland also told Sen. Ron Johnson (R Wisconsin) that Trump wanted a quid pro quo with Ukraine and he was not planning on giving them the already promised military aid unless they investigated Biden. Not to mention evidence for the scheme via the seized text messages among Volker, Sondland, and Taylor.

Another important aspect of the whole thing is how, according to that text exchange, the Trump admin didn't just want Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, they wanted Ukraine to make a public announcement of it.

Why was a public announcement so vital if Team Trump had absolutely no political interests in Ukraine investigating the Bidens?

You keep telling yourself he's not but most Americans are not buying it.

As I noted earlier, it's mostly down to just the true believers at this point, and there's really no sense in arguing with them (other than the lurker effect). A recent poll showed that ~24% of Americans wouldn't support impeaching Trump no matter what he did, and I think that explains some of what we're seeing here at RF.

 

[Callisto]

Another important aspect of the whole thing is how, according to that text exchange, the Trump admin didn't just want Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, they wanted Ukraine to make a public announcement of it.
Why was a public announcement so vital if Team Trump had absolutely no political interests in Ukraine investigating the Bidens?

Of course, fabricated drama and a lot of public dust to send the press scurrying off on that in order to distract from his other criminal activity as much as to compromise a political rival.

 

[Jollybear]

Only if it's internal, i.e. within our government and agencies. There are protocols in place to avoid conflicts of interest and corruption of our laws. Follow them. Meaning, you can investigate, but not president asking other country to do it for us. FBI, CIA, and other institutions can involve other countries and their agencies, but then there's no direct conflict of interest. When the president works on getting rid of his opposition for the election. He's the one abusing his power to win the election.


We the people. Us, Americans, the voters are harmed when election is infringed upon and manipulated.

The laws against foreign countries interfering with our election is to protect one of the most important freedoms and rights we have as American citizens, a fair election. Without a fair election, American democracy and constitution is made null and void.

How are we the voters harmed by knowing the potential corruption of a political candidate? Further, we can STILL vote for that candidate despite knowing the potential corruption.

So, no, we are not harmed in trump asking ukraine this favor. In fact, its the opposite, we are helped.

 

[Prometheus85]

How are we the voters harmed by knowing the potential corruption of a political candidate? Further, we can STILL vote for that candidate despite knowing the potential corruption.

So, no, we are not harmed in trump asking ukraine this favor. In fact, its the opposite, we are helped.

there absolutely no evidence Joe Biden and his son committed "corruption" of any sort in UkraineTrump evidently sees the conspiracy theory as a way to turn the whistleblower’s complaint into electoral gain. But keep trying to convince yourself that the Bidens are corrupt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How are we the voters harmed by knowing the potential corruption of a political candidate? Further, we can STILL vote for that candidate despite knowing the potential corruption.

So, no, we are not harmed in trump asking ukraine this favor. In fact, its the opposite, we are helped.

Ask Hillary. The investigation leaked just before the election found nothing on her. Don't you think the fact that she was being investigated had an effect?

Like it or not Trump is a self admitted cheater.

 

[Callisto]

How are we the voters harmed by knowing the potential corruption of a political candidate? Further, we can STILL vote for that candidate despite knowing the potential corruption.

So, no, we are not harmed in trump asking ukraine this favor. In fact, its the opposite, we are helped.

Yes, we are very much harmed by having foreign interference into our politics and elections. It's horrific to see Americans who are utterly oblivious to the ramifications of it.

First Trump lied that he wanted to withhold aid so other countries would step up then changed his story to being concerned about corruption ... yet fired the Ambassador who was already looking into corruption but didn't replace her with someone who supposedly would. Instead, he sends a million dollar campaign contributor with no diplomatic experience to handle "special assignments", code for pushing Ukraine to fabricate an investigation into a political rival.

The U.S. has established entities to investigate corruption which collaborate through diplomatic channels with other countries regarding international matters. Namely, treaties and law enforcement agencies, which Trump did not go through. We had already collaborated with the Ukraine in establishing departments there that could coordinate with the DOJ via proper channels.

Why wasn't there a push to investigate long before now? In office 2.5 years and no investigation before, but he's "concerned" about "corruption". Yeah, nothing shady about trying to fabricate a scandal during the election cycle to distract from his consistently low approval ratings with intent to dent the popularity of a political rival who could readily flip purple and some red states.