The Right Side of the News

Whose emails were hacked? Who were the Russian ads attacking?

What evidence? Apparently, they're books you aren't aware of because you can't cite any evidence. How do you know they aren't just baseless allegations with no evidence to back them?

This is the part I don't get. You could care less if there was a quid pro quo because you would support Trump no matter what. So why keep up this charade? Multiple people with knowledge of what went on have said there was a quid pro quo. Those are the facts. That's exactly what Trump does every time he plays the victim. "Witch hunt" and "Fake News" are all emotional words meant to deflect away from the truth.

Interesting. You claim that no one can understand Trump's taxes, yet you claim they are legal. Which is it? You would have to understand Trump's taxes in order to claim they are legal.Also, accepting something of worth for a political campaign from a foreign country is illegal. Obstructing Congress by ignoring subpoenas is illegal.

There is so much more than just a phone call. This was a campaign that went on for months. The phone call is just a tiny, tiny piece of the overall problem. Only members of the Cult of Trump pretend as if the phone call is all that exists.

Again, there is much, much more than just the phone call.For example, William Taylor was a direct witness to Sondland telling him that a visit to the White House and $400 million in aid depended on Ukraine publicaly announcing investigations into Biden. Do you think Sondland was a rogue agent acting on his own? Multiple witnesses have now come forward who are direct witnesses to WH officials stating outright that aid was conditioned on public investigations into Biden. DIRECT WITNESSES!! If "liar, liar, pants on fire" is the best that you can do, then you have admitted defeat.

William Taylor was a direct witness to Sondland telling him that there was a quid pro quo. Sondland has stated that he was following Trump's orders. It isn't that hard to figure out.

It isn't Democrats testifying. These are people from the Trump Administration including non-partisan career officials.

That was only after they got caught.

quote:

---

Sondland testified that he asked Trump for clarification on what he wanted from Ukraine on Sept. 9, the same day three House committees announced they were opening an investigation into an allegation Trump had pressured Ukraine for political gain.

​

"He said, 'I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on,'" Sondland testified.
Trump Impeachment hearing: Key quotes from Gordon Sondland testimony

---

There is no evidence that there was a government supported effort to support Hillary on the part of the Ukrainians. At most, individual Ukrainians voiced their poor opinions of Trump.This is completely different than what we saw with Russia. In the case of Russia, government money flowed into groups that posted fake news about Hillary Clinton, and government money supported the hacking of the DNC server. This is not in any way comparable to the opinions voiced by individual Ukrainians.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Where in the evidence for the claim that the Ukrainian government worked for Hillary?

Politico gave no evidence that there was a top-down effort by the Ukrainian government to work with Hillary. Individual officials may have cooperated with a journalist who was acting on their own, but there is no government-wide effort to interfere in our elections. In fact, it was government policy to not do that:

quote:

---

Chalupa said the embassy also worked directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and Russia to point them in the right directions. She added, though, they were being very protective and not speaking to the press as much as they should have. I think they were being careful because their situation was that they had to be very, very careful because they could not pick sides. It’s a political issue, and they didn’t want to get involved politically because they couldn’t.

---

So it was the Ukrainian governments position to not get involved in American politics. Russia, on the other hand, made it their business to do just the opposite.Also, the people who did offer information were doing so with Chalupa, not at the behest of Hillary:

quote:

---

A DNC official stressed that Chalupa was a consultant paid to do outreach for the party’s political department, not a researcher. She undertook her investigations into Trump, Manafort and Russia on her own, and the party did not incorporate her findings in its dossiers on the subjects, the official said, stressing that the DNC had been building robust research books on Trump and his ties to Russia long before Chalupa began sounding alarms. . .

​

Chalupa left the DNC after the Democratic convention in late July to focus fulltime on her research into Manafort, Trump and Russia. She said she provided off-the-record information and guidance to a lot of journalists working on stories related to Manafort and Trump’s Russia connections, despite what she described as escalating harassment.

---

Perhaps you should actually read the article.

Yes, they are denying it. Trump is denying it. That's what the whole Crowdstrike conspiracy theory is about. That is one of the investigations that Trump asked the Ukrainians to start, a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukrainians framed Russia for the DNC hacked emails. It is all Russian propaganda, and Trump is all to happy to repeat it. Why? Umm, yes. Legal is ok, while illegal is not. It's not that hard to figure out. When someone uses their public office to pressure a foreign government to announce investigations into their political rivals, that is illegal. When a private citizen pays a domestic investigation firm to do opposition research, that is legal. Laws matter. No, it isn't. That's a lie. The FBI gathered evidence outside of the dossier, such as Trump campaign officials bragging about the upcoming release of DNA emails before they were released.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Trump is denying it by pushing the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory. The conspiracy states that Russia was framed for the hack into the DNA email server. Can you quote Trump as ever agreeing with the intelligence community that Russia interfered in the 2016 election? Law abiding citizens care. Don't you care if the law is followed? You need to evidence to back this up. You need statements from a judge stating that warrants were issued based on the dossier. That is what Trump is being accused of. Would you agree that if a public official did pressure a foreign government to open a baseless allegation into their political rivals, that this would be illegal and impeachable? Biden was acting in our national interest and on stated policy by calling for the firing a corrupt prosecutor. This is well established. It serves no national interest for Ukraine to pursue debunked conspiracy theories that would only benefit Trump's reelection campaign. That's the difference. The point is that Trump abused his office.

Impeaching a corrupt President is what Congressional powers are all about.