bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,360
- 2,180
The point is that at the time of the phone call Zelinski didn't know the aid was being held up. In other words, Trump couldn't have been using it as leverage. Of course, your brain damage prevents you from comprehending that.What guessing? Trump didn't inform Barr. That's not a guess. Trump delivered the aid after the whistleblower filed a complaint he was withholding it. That's not a guess. Shit, Trump's own acting chief of staff admitted he was holding up the funds because of a favor trump asked of Zelensky....He lied to Zelensky when he said Barr will be in touch. Itvturned out he never told Barr about his conversation with Zelensky to investigate Biden.He didn't have to say "me" or "my campaign," as he named his political rival. And the proper channels to investigate Biden would have been through his own Department of Justice, not a foreign national, which is against the law.Investigate what happened in 2016. He said do us a favor on the call. Our country has been through a lot. Never says me or my campaign. Now his intent could have been what you stated. But how do you prove that, especially after Comey is back tracking on the FISA and Burisma and withholding $1Bn by Biden until the prosecutor was removed did happen and getting Hunter a BOD gig, did happen.
It is not cut and dry. Hence the parties are divided.
Maybe but that is not how he operates. He said Barr will be in touch. Ultimately he did deliver the weapons and honestly he had zero foresight how the investigation would go and if Biden would be exonerated. Not enough to impeach but enough to educate the voters and let us decide in 2020.
And he only delivered the aid after a whistleblower filed a complaint that he was holding up the aid in exchange for favors. And that was 7 months after Congress approved it.
He did and you have proof of his intent? No. You're guessing. This is fine and the voters should know but this is not enough to impeach. They are impeaching based on "abuse of power". Has there ever been a criminal prosecuted for this ever? No.
This is 100% political IMO and not at all logical. Again, Alan Dershowitz agrees with me. He is a legal expert. He is also a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.
"Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." ~ Mick Mulvaney
(emphasis added)
Mulvaney didn't mention a "favor." He mentioned corruption. You reached a conclusion that isn't warranted by the facts. Of course, that's your SOP, isn't it?