Trump did what on 7/25/2019? Based on the released 7/25 transcript, He asked Zelensky for a favor. One favor. Then he asked about CrowdStrike, not Biden. He asked about Mueller, not Biden. Then he asked about Ukraine issues, not Biden. Zelensky spoke for a bit, without mention of Biden, then Trump picked up with Giuliani, Barr, and Yovanovitch [not named], but not Biden. Finally, the eighth discussion point between them. Trump mentions Biden. So, that's the opposing rationale. There are seven points of separation between the ask and mention of Biden, but the whole is to be deleted [as Schiff did in his parody], and we go direct to an ask about Biden? In what universe? Not in my republic. Sorry about yours.
What favor did President Trump request of Ukraine President Zekensky?
Posts
Total:
102
-->
@fauxlaw
Reality doesn't matter with the liberals.
They did the same thing with Kavenaugh. No evidence, witnesses contradict story, and still the yahoos insisted Kavenaugh was guilty.
Same with the collusion hoax. They had the evidence. The crime was clear. No doubt. Then nothing.
Then impeachment. Proof they scream! It's proven beyond a doubt they shot! Then they want more witnesses. Why? Isn't the case airtight?
Biden brags on tape of forcing the Ukrainians to fire their AG or lose their aid. But Trump gets charged. No crime, no quid pro quo. No withholding aid. No favors. Yet the deranged lemmings insist Trump is the one guilty.
-->
@fauxlaw
The reasonable interpretation is that the favor was a two part request to look into aspects of Ukraine-US incidences. The first incidence was obviously CrowdStrike, the second was Burisma. This is indicated by the language "The other thing" and "so if you can look into it" in reference to Biden.
The notion that looking into Biden was not a part of the favor is an incredibly charitable interpretation of the conversation such that I find it difficult to believe that you'd apply the same charitability to any other conversation that did not involve Trump.
Trump gets unfairly bashed over many issues. But at the same time, he should be fairly criticized for his missteps.
-->
@ethang5
It's so funny Because Trump achieved 2 things over the left's overreaction.
1) wall to wall coverage of the Biden's involvement in Ukraine saturating the media with the Streisand Effect.
2) A huge surge in base support with the failed impeachment.
Trump continues to be the master political troll of all time.
-->
@dustryder
So, you're describing two separate favors; CrowdStrike/Burisma [the latter never mentioned, by the way], and looking into Biden. But the request was for "one" favor, so you're going to have to parse the single favor. You didn't. Not to mention repeating that seven degrees of separation exist between CrowdStrike and Biden. Why should you suppose that the last is the favor requested. IUs tat how you ask for favorts? I don't.
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm not describing two separate favours. If I asked you to go to the shop for me to buy me apples and then later before you left I said can you also buy me oranges, I'm not asking for a favour to go to the shop and buy me apples, and then another favour to go to the shop and buy me oranges. The interaction should be correctly parsed to mean the favour is going to the shop, to buy both apples and oranges.
Same thing here. The favour is to investigate incidences involving both ukraine and US parties. First crowdstrike, then burisma.
The amount of degrees of separation is irrelevant. In my example, if we happened to discuss aliens before I also asked you to buy me oranges, it should be clear that the oranges refers to the favour of going to the shop.
In this case, the language "if you can look into it" to me refers to some sort of an investigation. The only other time an investigation was referenced to in the conversation was in relation to the favour. "The other thing" also indicates this, because it only makes sense in the context of an investigation into something else that was already asked to be investigated, which was crowdstrike.
-->
@dustryder
Trump:
"I would like you to do us a favor though..."
"I would like you to find out what happened with... CrowdStrike..." [not Biden] "The server, they say Ukraine has it." [favor?]
"I would like to have the Attorney General call you, or your people..." [favor?]
"That whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller" [not Biden] "...they say a lot of it started in Ukraine. Whatever you can do." [favor?]
Zelensky: "I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation" [which investigation? Biden? No, he has not bee mentioned yet] "..and all the investigations will be done openly and candidly." [not Biden; he's not mentioned yet, but Trump has already mentioned CrowdStrike, and Mueller] [favor?]
Trump:
"...the way they shut your very good prosecutor down..." ['they,' who? Well, who fired the prosecutor? Not Biden; he's not a Ukrainian with the authority to do that, is he? That action was done by former Ukrainian leaders.] [favor?]
"If you could speak to him," [Giuliani] "that would be great." [favor?]
"The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news, and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know about that." [favor?]
How many favors are you going to pass over just to get to Biden? One favor. Apples and oranges, and a map of Ukraine, and party favors [no pun intended], and a box of Depends, and toilet paper, and cough syrup."
Add more items to the list; I don't care.
"If you can look into it" is Biden's time in the sun, but the sun rose on other favors first. So, which was the ONE favor? It wasn't a shopping list, my friend.
-->
@fauxlaw
A favour can be composed of multiple actions and expositions related to the favour. The key indicator is whether those actions or expositions stand on their own merit as a favour.
For example,
"The server, they say Ukraine has it." obviously is related to CrowdStrike. It means nothing on its own - exposition related to the favour.
"I would like to have the Attorney General call you, or your people...". Again, means nothing on its own. It clearly an action related to the favour
More specifically, the language "The other thing" is meaningless on its own. It is an "other thing" to something else previously mentioned. Since the "other thing" previously mentioned was the favour, from my perspective it is reasonable to interpret the request into an investigation into Biden as being a secondary request in the overall favour of investigation into ukraine-us dealings.
Finally, it should be noted that favours need not be explicitly expressed to be considered favours. It is clear that Trump has requested an investigation into Biden and whether or not you decide to bundle that under the "I would like you to do us a favor", taken on its own it is a favour of its own accord.
-->
@dustryder
Even if your claim is granted, Biden and his son were involved. How would a US president who is charged with enforcing his country's laws, look into things in Ukraine without the investigation touching Joe and Hunter Biden?
And if they are involved in any illegality, why should they not be investigated? An investigation is not a crime. In fact, an investigation would clear a clean Hunter and Joe.
But just like with Kavenaugh, and Russia collusion, and impeachment, democrat want to pretend they know a person's internal intent.
The reasonable interpretation...
Fine, but people are convicted by evidence, not hunches. But democrats want convictions on "reasonable interpretations", when it should be preponderance of evidence.
The tactics used on Judge Kavenaugh, in the Russia Collusion case, in the impeachment are basically fascist. Same with the absolutely silly and dangerous idea that any woman making a rape claim should be automatically believed.
Were it up to democrats, people would be found guilty on accusations alone. Trump, Kavenaugh, those poor college boys accused of rape who the courts have exonerated, and those catholic school boys accused of "disrespecting" that fake Native Indian elder.
It is fascism. No exaggeration. Imagine the day when all a woman has to do to put you in jail is simply make an accusation!
When whatever seems like a "reasonable interpretation" to someone is what convicts you instead of hard evidence.
The time is fast coming when we will have to fight for our freedom or bow to enslavement.
-->
@ethang5
Even if your claim is granted, Biden and his son were involved. How would a US president who is charged with enforcing his country's laws, look into things in Ukraine without the investigation touching Joe and Hunter Biden?
I assume typically cases of suspected high illegality should be referred to the DoJ? Though of course regardless this would've been a non-issue if Trump hadn't been dangling military aid as a bargaining chip
And if they are involved in any illegality, why should they not be investigated? An investigation is not a crime. In fact, an investigation would clear a clean Hunter and Joe.
They should be, given sufficient basis
-->
@dustryder
a non-issue if Trump hadn't been dangling military aid as a bargaining chip
it wasn't an issue according to Zelensky. The only people who saw it as an issue was fake news losing power over the government coup.
-->
@dustryder
I assume typically cases of suspected high illegality should be referred to the DoJ?
The same DOJ that was bugging him and had an "insurance policy" against his being elected?
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh yes absolutely. And the girl with bruises down her back who fervently denies that she is being abused by her father is not being abused. We should absolutely trust those that fear retaliation over the evidence that surrounds the circumstances.
-->
@ethang5
Rather the DoJ headed by the man appointed by Trump and generally seen as biased towards Trump affairs.
-->
@dustryder
And the girl with bruises down her back who fervently denies that she is being abused by her father is not being abused.
Attitudes like that are why we can't have responsible dialogues between the leaders of 2 nations without playing the fake media drama card.
You have absolutely no idea how disgustingly patronizing you sound to a proud Ukrainian in your little myopic American bubble.
But that has been the curse of the elites in government, the brainwashing of people to see all other cultures as inferior like a "battered bruised child" that needs "American daddie" to fix it.
-->
@dustryder
this would've been a non-issue if Trump hadn't been dangling military aid as a bargaining chip
You are confusing Trump with Biden. Biden dangled $1B to Ukraine, saying, on video, that Ukraine had six hours to fire their prosecutor, or the $1B would be withdrawn. Trump put a temp hold in $139M, about ten X less than Biden's play, but released it well before the deadline for that payment, 9/30/2019. Paid on 9/11. Anything strike you as coincidental about that date, 9/30? No? It happened to be the end of fiscal 2018, and intended for use by Ukraine beginning fiscal 2019, on 10/1. So, the argument that Ukrainian soldiers were endangered by the delay is also a crock of shyte, because earlier payment in fiscal 2018 took the neds of those soldiers to end fiscal year 2018.
Rather the DoJ headed by the man appointed by Trump and generally seen as biased towards Trump affairs.
Oh, for the shame! A president appoints an A.G. who is agreeable to Trump policy. Can you just imagine how unique that is. Face it, bud, you hate everything about Tump and will complain that he brushes his teeth.
-->
@Greyparrot
The fact is, Ukraine cannot afford to upset the leader of the US, especially when said leader tends to be vindictive towards those that "wrong" him. Zelensky being truthful in this matter would actively harm his nation. Being untruthful does not. In fact, being untruthful helps in currying favour in the future.
Zelensky had every incentive to lie for the betterment of Ukraine interests and it's clear as such when you analyze the events and communications.
-->
@dustryder
So by that logic, every Nation that receives American aid right now has a motive to have a deceitful leader.
That's not even a remotely sane position to take, and the very worst of prejudices to build lasting national agreements on. "Orangemanbad" and "Zelensky liar" isn't a starting point for foreign policy. It's the end of the discussion.
But isn't that the whole thesis of Orangemanbad philosophy? Burn the world down to spite one man?
I guess it beats screaming at the sky I suppose.
-->
@fauxlaw
You are confusing Trump with Biden. Biden dangled $1B to Ukraine, saying, on video, that Ukraine had six hours to fire their prosecutor, or the $1B would be withdrawn. Trump put a temp hold in $139M, about ten X less than Biden's play, but released it well before the deadline for that payment, 9/30/2019. Paid on 9/11. Anything strike you as coincidental about that date, 9/30? No? It happened to be the end of fiscal 2018, and intended for use by Ukraine beginning fiscal 2019, on 10/1. So, the argument that Ukrainian soldiers were endangered by the delay is also a crock of shyte, because earlier payment in fiscal 2018 took the neds of those soldiers to end fiscal year 2018.
No, because this is a topic about Trump's dealings not Biden's.
<br>Oh, for the shame! A president appoints an A.G. who is agreeable to Trump policy. Can you just imagine how unique that is. Face it, bud, you hate everything about Tump and will complain that he brushes his teeth.
Context is important. Ethang5's comments argue that Trump could not have referred the case to the DoJ, because the DoJ had an insurance policy against him getting elected. My comment argues that the DoJ is headed by someone who is sympathetic to Trump's causes and hence, he could've referred the case to the DoJ.
In a vacuum, I don't actually care that Barr appears to be a Trump sycophant because, as you say, appointees tends to be sympathetic towards their appointers
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a perfectly sane position to have. If I need something, REALLY need something, you bet your ass I'm going to suck up to you if it makes sure I get it. The only differences is that country leaders have more at stake and personal pride has little value next to the well being of your citizens.
And given that Ukraine is actively being threatened by Russia, I would say that Zelensky has a significant need to be on friendly relations with Trump
-->
@dustryder
So is Merkel a shifty Liar? How about Trudeau, is he lying his ass off? How about Macron is he a sea of untruths?
I mean I get the paranoia when it comes to supporting the fake news narrative, but that's a bit much.
It's ok to be skeptical of government in general, but you have to draw the line somewhere instead of seeing every foreign leader as a lying sycophant.
I'm sure more than a few foreign leaders even like Trump and despise people that think like you. Honestly, they do.
-->
@Greyparrot
Absolutely. I think all politicians will lie to benefit their citizens given the sufficiency of the need.
That said Germany, France and Canada are all a part of global powers and circumstances such that they don't need to bend over for foreign aid. ie NATO, EU
It just so happens that the Ukraine shares a border with Russia, is actively being threatened and is not part of the EU or NATO. Hence they do need to bend over for the US
-->
@dustryder
I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with your assessment that every political leader either hates or "must hate" Trump and that none of them could possibly actually like Trump and his policies.
It's entirely plausible that Zelensky and the Ukrainian people are logically supportive of a president that has been tough against Russia since 2016.
Unlike other Administrations.
Even if your theory was to hold water, why hasn't Zelensky been deceitful with the other EU nations who do nothing but appease Russia? Probably because Zelensky has far more reason to hate Germany than America right now just looking at policies.
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with your assessment that every political leader either hates or "must hate" Trump and that none of them could possibly actually like Trump and his policies.It's entirely plausible that Zelensky and the Ukrainian people are logically supportive of a president that has been tough against Russia since 2016. Unlike other Administrations.
I made no such assessment. I don't know where you pulled this from. There's a good chance that many leaders are ambivalent towards Trump. I do however believe that some leaders have expressed dislike towards Trump.
I'm not aware of anything that makes the Trump administration particularly tough against Russia. I presume all that has happened is that he's slapped sanctions against Russia, which is pretty much what Obama did no?
Even if your theory was to hold water, why hasn't Zelensky been deceitful with the other EU nations who do nothing but appease Russia? Probably because Zelensky has far more reason to hate Germany than America right now just looking at policies.
I don't know what the relationship between the EU and Ukraine is like. I presume they do offer the Ukraine aid in some form. However to my knowledge the EU leaders have not attempted to extort Ukraine, which certainly reduces the need to lie about the existence of an extortion. Remember, there is good reason to lie when there is a need. If you can't demonstrate a need, then there's hardly a reason to lie.
-->
@dustryder
I presume they do offer the Ukraine aid in some form.
This is a terrible assumption. The point is that Zelensky is not lying or deceiving EU leaders, nor "playing the battered child" fake news card. If that approach does not equate to receiving substantial aid from any of the EU nations, then Zelensky has no logical reason to play that card with America either. It's a childish and ethnocentric view to assume the world outside of America operates largely on foreign appeasement, groveling, and deception, because the opposite is actually true.
While Ukraine may have been used in the past like a giant crony washeteria laundering money from American taxpayers into the pockets of the Clintons and the Bidens and the Obama's, that game is over now.
-->
@dustryder
In a vacuum, I don't actually care that Barr appears to be a Trump sycophant because, as you say, appointees tends to be sympathetic towards their appointers
Then tell your right brain to tell your left brain that that is exactly the case, vacuum, or not.
No, because this is a topic about Trump's dealings not Biden's.
And Trump's dealing was not a dangle; not a quid pro quo. Not that there is anything wrong with a quid pro quo in government as long as there is not person profiting from the deal. Trump did not personally profit from delaying payment that was, in the end, paid on time, anyway. So, what, exactly, is your problem with Trump's negotiation with Ukraine, because this isn't it.
-->
@Greyparrot
This is a terrible assumption. The point is that Zelensky is not lying or deceiving EU leaders, nor "playing the battered child" fake news card. If that approach does not equate to receiving substantial aid from any of the EU nations, then Zelensky has no logical reason to play that card with America either. It's a childish and ethnocentric view to assume the world outside of America operates largely on foreign appeasement, groveling, and deception, because the opposite is actually true.
I made no claim what Zelensky does or does not do in regards to the EU. But it is clear that Zelensky needed aid from America, and that Trump is vindictive towards those who spurn him. The logical conclusion is that Zelensky lied to maintain Ukraine-US relations. The testimony and events of this incident supports this conclusion. Your claim that what he says must be true just because he says it in comparison is baseless
-->
@fauxlaw
We appear to have gone off course.
It's all good with me as long as you understand that Trump did ask Zelensky to investigate the Bidens and this is a favour, explicit or not.
-->
@dustryder
What off course? The origin of this string is to identify what favor Trump was asking for in discussion with Ukraine's Zelensky. You maintain it was a Biden investigation, and can see no other possibility. I disagree, and it appears neither will convince the other. No off course, at all, just an inability to convince.
-->
@dustryder
Your diatribe assumes Ukraine does not need or want aid from the EU.
With so many unreal assumptions, I think we can just stop here. The American lens is myopic indeed.
I actually spent a lot of time reading Ukrainian press and reading their social media. Your assumptions about Ukraine and Zelensky have very little basis in reality. The things you think are worth dying for are not the things Ukraine cares about.