The Right Side of the News

Trump did try to extort the President of Ukraine. It is not a lie.
Not the end of discussion, because there are more witnesses to hear from.
Why are you so anti-American? Why are you so against the US Constitution? Why do you support an wannabe autocrat?

No. You don't get to end the discussion. The investigation is still ongoing and the investigators will decide what Trump did ot tried to do, not you.

and what is your evidence that he is the whistleblower?

If he is at least he should feel safe knowing that he is being outed by doofuses that can't even get his name right.
But you don't have any evidence or even reasonable arguments as to why you think this guy is the whistleblower do you.

The evidence that he did is overwhelming. Especially after foday. Yep, the discussion is over. The truth's out.

No he did not. Aid was not mentioned at all in the phone call, and even if it had been it is common for Presidents to make aid contingent on such things as whether there is corruption in the country to receive it, whih is what he was asking about. But no aid was mentioned, it was not withheld, they got it and they did nothing at all in order to get it so there was no extortion whatever. You all just want ot think there was but you don't understand anything about it so you just impose your own hatred of Trump on it.

It's in the transcript. Many reliable witnesses have testified as to what happened. The cat is out of the bag.Your refusal to return to planet Earth does not change that.

quote:

---

Aid was not mentioned at all in the phone call...

---

Zelensky explicitly mentioned the missiles - which the military aid was for. Trump immediately asked for a favour,

quote:

---

... even if it had been it is common for Presidents to make aid contingent on such things as whether there is corruption in the country to receive it

---

Trump wasn’t concerned with corruption, he wanted Zelensky to help find the imaginary server and to announce that Hunter Biden was being investigated (see Sondland’s testimony - Trump didn’t need an actual investigation, just the announcement).And since you mention corruption it seems that Politico got it’s facts wrong. Manafort’s dealings with the Russians were revealed by anti-corruption investigators, BBC
The aid was given - but only because Republican Senators pushed Trump into it. And the White House visit for Zelensky - the other part of the deal - has not happened.

All but two of the "witnesses" were not witnesses, they wre reporting third and fourth hand hearsay. Aand there is no mention of "aid" in the transcript of the phone call.

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.

Romans would have done it ...

quote:

---

The assassination of Julius Caesar was a conspiracy of several Roman senators, notably led by Marcus Junius Brutus, Cassius Longinus, and Decimus Brutus, at the end of the Roman Republic. They stabbed Caesar to death in the Theatre of Pompey on the Ides of March (15 March) 44 BC.

​

In January 44, Caesarwho was already dictatorwas named perpetual dictator by the Senate. This declaration made many senators of the conservative Optimates faction fear that Caesar wanted to overthrow the Republic and establish a monarchy; they thus decided to kill him to save the Republic. Despite the death of Caesar, the conspirators were unable to restore the institutions of the Republic, and the ramifications of the assassination led to the Liberators' civil war and ultimately to the Principate period of the Roman Empire.

---

Enjoy

Every testimony to date has supported the bare facts that aid was withheld, that favors were asked for -- as detailed in the letter/memo of the August 12 phone call.So far neither Trump nor the republicans have presented any exculpatory evidence:

quote:

---

Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt.[1] It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to present guilt.

​

In many countries, including the United States, police and prosecutors are required to disclose to the defendant exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant enters a plea (guilty or not guilty).[2]

​

Per the Brady v. Maryland decision, prosecutors have a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence even if not requested to do so. While the prosecution is not required to search for exculpatory evidence and must disclose only the evidence in its possession, custody, or control, the prosecution's duty is to disclose all information known to any member of its team, e.g., police, investigators, crime labs, et cetera. In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that such a requirement follows from constitutional due process and is consistent with the prosecutor's duty to seek justice.[3]

---

So far all the evidence presented is inculpatory. All republicans have done is pretend that nothing happened.The bare minimum evidence that everyone should agree on:

1. The aid was held up
2. holding up the aid endangered the Ukrainians
3. holding up the aid damaged out relationship with Ukraine
4. the only person who could hold up the aid is Trump
5. holding up the aid potentially benefited two parties:
   1. Russia ⁽¹⁾
   2. Trump ⁽²⁾
6. the aid was released immediately after the whistle-blower's document became public
7. there is no other reason known for the aid to be held up

⁽¹⁾ -- it weakens the apparent support for Ukraine from the west and emboldens his expansionist behavior. This is evident from watching Russian TV, where they are advising Ukraine to side with Russia.⁽²⁾ -- it allows Giulliani, as Trump's personal lawyer/representative, to verbalize the quid pro quo (extortion) of "deliverables" ... investigation into Biden, the mythical DNC server etcThe action of Trump (whitehouse, administration, etc) in refusing to provide any evidence is (a) obstruction of justice (withholding evidence is a crime) and (b) implies there is no exculpatory evidence they could release, and (c) gives the impression of guilt.Enjoy

But there's plenty of mentions of aid in the statements of the witnesses. The phone call isn't all we haveAll the witnesses tell largely the same story. (If they all told exactly the same story that would be suspicious.) They're not telling third or fourth hand. Even if you want to ignore all of them except the two you acknowledge are directly involved the facts are clear,