At least Paul is consistent at being wrong.
Trump had no ‘right’ to withhold aid in an effort to coerce Ukraine into investigating a political rival to benefit Trump politically – that’s called abuse of power, and it warrants Trump being removed from office via the impeachment process.
Nope.
Such is your opinion, that is your interpretation.
What you just said is not a fact.
Facts rule.
President Trump, as any American, has the right to check if any other American has committed corruption in other countries, and this question can be for the benefit of all Americans.
Lets say. The son of Democrat candidate Biden indeed made corrupt business in Ukraine and his father helped him to be free from an investigation about it.
Lets say president Trump never ask for such an investigation, and after elections Mr. Biden is elected the new president.
However, after he won the presidency, the truth about the corrupt business comes out. What will be next? Will you live OK with a declared corrupt president for the next four years?
Is that what you want?
Isn't better to investigate now and free Mr. Biden of all charges before the elections?
Look, president Trump is making a favor to all Americans by trying to solve this issue before elections. If Mr. Biden is free of guilt, then everything will run over wheels very smooth.
Best is to investigate what the son of Mr. Biden was doing in Ukraine and checking if something corrupt happened over there. Not only the president but al Americans deserve to know what happened over there.
On the other hand, only in polls Mr. Biden is winning the race against president Trump, because in reality there is no Democrat candidate with strong force and support to beat president Trump, in other words, president Trump doesn't need to play dirty in order to win the presidency again. Playing dirty is a Democrat thing.
On the other hand Democrats desperately need of anything against the president to diminish the Americans preference of voting for him one more time.
I can see it, the facts show that the intentions of president Trump weren't personal advantage, you can read the transcript of the telephone conversation, and nothing, absolutely nothing supports your assumptions.
Nobody can read the mind of other people, so your argument is invalid looking at it from the scientific point of view. In cases like this, the transcript evidence must be the only one talking in those meetings. The rest must be solely opinions, not accusations but opinions.
