the 45th is The Fourth US President to officially Face Impeachment.

[Agema]

Which, again, I think is an unfair idea.

The Republicans in Power were keen to expunge votes in their controlled districts that they didn't like. Trump actually lost the popular vote by 3 million. And Republicans Redmap was put into secret action six years prior to make sure the Republican vote counted more than any other.

To be faced with this information and then shrug and go "Oh well, he was still voted in" teeters on willful ignorance. This was a legal coup that worked.

But still... Republicans, you had better choices than Trump.

Ultimately, Trump took the Republican vote as normal. 63 million votes: more than Romney, more than McCain, even more than GWB in 2004, all of which had similar or higher turnout. Leaving Democratic vote suppression aside, Trump evidently cost the 2016 Republican campaign virtually nothing at all depite him being clearly erratic, venal and ignorant of governance.

Now in office he's threatening to dismember all manner of international agreements and institutions set up by the Western allies, treats traditional US allies with open contempt, talks up and defends our geopolitical opponents... and he's still polling healthily enough with Republicans that he's got a pretty good chance of re-election.

I can't but help see Trump as a reflection of the attitudes of his voters, and the lack of respect for other countries and international norms he shows is thus also the feelings of Republican voters. Therefore I am inclined to trust the USA less on the global stage generally, because it really isn't just one dodgy man at the top.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ultimately, Trump took the Republican vote as normal. 63 million votes: more than Romney, more than McCain, even more than GWB in 2004, all of which had similar or higher turnout. Leaving Democratic vote suppression aside, Trump evidently cost the 2016 Republican campaign virtually nothing at all depite him being clearly erratic, venal and ignorant of governance.

Now in office he's threatening to dismember all manner of international agreements and institutions set up by the Western allies, treats traditional US allies with open contempt, talks up and defends our geopolitical opponents... and he's still polling healthily enough with Republicans that he's got a pretty good chance of re-election.

I can't but help see Trump as a reflection of the attitudes of his voters, and the lack of respect for other countries and international norms he shows is thus also the feelings of Republican voters. Therefore I am inclined to trust the USA less on the global stage generally, because it really isn't just one dodgy man at the top.

To add to that, in a sense it doesn't really matter how the PotUS is selected, they've gone and chosen a terrible one, there's no reason for people to trust that they won't go and do that again.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Ultimately, Trump took the Republican vote as normal. 63 million votes: more than Romney, more than McCain, even more than GWB in 2004, all of which had similar or higher turnout. Leaving Democratic vote suppression aside, Trump evidently cost the 2016 Republican campaign virtually nothing at all depite him being clearly erratic, venal and ignorant of governance.

Now in office he's threatening to dismember all manner of international agreements and institutions set up by the Western allies, treats traditional US allies with open contempt, talks up and defends our geopolitical opponents... and he's still polling healthily enough with Republicans that he's got a pretty good chance of re-election.

I can't but help see Trump as a reflection of the attitudes of his voters, and the lack of respect for other countries and international norms he shows is thus also the feelings of Republican voters. Therefore I am inclined to trust the USA less on the global stage generally, because it really isn't just one dodgy man at the top.

To add to that, in a sense it doesn't really matter how the PotUS is selected, they've gone and chosen a terrible one, there's no reason for people to trust that they won't go and do that again.

I'm not saying don't be wary. But again, 63 million votes against 327 million people. That's a fifth of the population. If we're judging whole cultures for the actions of a fifth of their population, then I don't know who we can really trust.

I look at the numbers and while I actually have a problem with Republicans' choosing process... and I have to admit that this has shaken my faith in a free vote if people are not going to take this stuff seriously... I more have a problem with Republican Politicians using the Redmap to invalidate proper districts and turn the tide towards Trump.

The Redmap Gerrymandering has been a tactic that's been benefiting for a decade now. From voting more Republicans to restructure and purge more Democratic votes, hundreds of thousands it seems yearly just in time to swing some elections. I honestly feel with even how many Republicans did vote for Trump, the number of districts and even Voters who would have voted in Hilary would have been greater if it wasn't for deliberate tampering.

I mean, we felt it just recently again with the 2018 election cycle [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/08/democrats-republicans-senate-majority-minority-rule]. Americans are coming out against this bull, but the cards are still stacked against them legally because a lot of Republican Politicians were and are hard at work making sure they are passing bills to give themselves more power.

And in fairness, I gotta mention the Party Line. I'm sure there are a few Republicans who think Trump is an asshat, but they vote with their party. I don't know if that's better, but it's something to mention.

Going back to the Tampering idea, I honestly believe that if the actual will of the people were allowed, Hilary would be president now and we all would be thinking how close we came to a tragedy. A fifth of the population voting for Trump would have been taken as it is: a lesser amount of the population.

I hate the fact that he won, but what I hate most is how we were robbed of our actual will and people say we chose Trump. We didn't. Millions of people didn't. Millions of people didn't get a chance. 16 Million [https://thinkprogress.org/states-purged-16-million-voters-from-the-rolls-before-the-2016-election-1c5688dcaad7/]. From 2014-2016, This massive Voting Purge affected a majority of Low Income and Minority voters, also known as Most likely Democratic.

If those 16 million were allowed to vote, what would the likelihood be that Trump would be our president now?

I'll say it before, I'll say it again. No matter people's feelings or emotions, Trump isn't the will of the people. He is the will of the Republican Politicians who have done everything to steal this country from its democratic roots. To look at the country unfavorably to their scheming is anyone's prerogative. Trust me, I wouldn't be trying to move to Canada if I personally liked the country.

But I have to be real that even though too many voted for Trump, too many were denied their voice. That is not the Fault of America. That is the fault of barely a couple of hundred politicians. Blame the corruption. Do not blame the People.

 

[tstorm823]

Going back to the Tampering idea, I honestly believe that if the actual will of the people were allowed, Hilary would be president now and we all would be thinking how close we came to a tragedy. A fifth of the population voting for Trump would have been taken as it is: a lesser amount of the population.

If Hillary Clinton won the election, she would also have won with approximately 1/5th of the population. Hillary had 2 million more votes, which is 0.6% of the US population. Your argument against Trump here works against basically every president ever elected.

And if Hillary Clinton had won, nobody would be thinking about how close we came to a tragedy anymore than the number of people thinking that now. Hillary Clinton is still more resented than Donald Trump [https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/03/science-says-mitch-mcconnell-is-the-most-hated-politician-in-america/], by that graph Trump has a ~7 with Republicans and a ~1.3 with Democrats out of 10, where Clinton has a ~1 and like ~6.6 respectively. If Clinton had won, people would probably be complaining more about Bernie being snubbed than the would about Trump losing, he'd fade into history without a political legacy, just the weird reality tv guy that lost to one of the sleaziest candidates in history.

 

[Agema]

I'm not saying don't be wary. But again, 63 million votes against 327 million people. That's a fifth of the population. If we're judging whole cultures for the actions of a fifth of their population, then I don't know who we can really trust.

A sizeable chunk of the US population (around 5-10%) are not US citizens, and around a quarter are children. Neither group should really count, so let's say 63 million out of ~220 million. It would also be a safe assumption that a reasonable chunk of non-voters are sympathetic to the president despite not having voted.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I'm not saying don't be wary. But again, 63 million votes against 327 million people. That's a fifth of the population. If we're judging whole cultures for the actions of a fifth of their population, then I don't know who we can really trust.

A sizeable chunk of the US population (around 5-10%) are not US citizens, and around a quarter are children. Neither group should really count, so let's say 63 million out of ~220 million. It would also be a safe assumption that a reasonable chunk of non-voters are sympathetic to the president despite not having voted.

So, where do we really draw the line? We cast out the elderly, the mentally challenged, the children, The Felons, and the fresh migrants? Why don't we separate the Democrats, the Independents, and the Few Republicans who voted for Hilary or did not vote in 2016? Why must that number be lumped into the blanket 'America that voted Trump in'?

If we adjust to make a point, then we can further adjust to counter that point. Again, millions upon millions upon millions of people purged from voting. We don't even know what the consensus is for America's true popular vote to be. Yet even still, Americans still picked Hilary by Popular Vote.

But when still faced with these facts, most non-American shrug it off because they will not let it get in the way of judging America instead of the system put in play to rob the actual will of the American people.

 

[Agema]

So, where do we really draw the line? We cast out the elderly, the mentally challenged, the children, The Felons, and the fresh migrants? Why don't we separate the Democrats, the Independents, and the Few Republicans who voted for Hilary or did not vote in 2016? Why must that number be lumped into the blanket 'America that voted Trump in'?

Democratic countries are essentially a composite of their people. The bigger the proportion of the people that seem objectionable or problematic, the more reason to worry about that country. It doesn't mean there aren't loads of good ones or that there are more bad than good, it just means there's a reason to worry. Even if not the ones who won the election, politicians may act to appease powerful groups with policy the group likes.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Eh, get rid of the politicians, and people will still wonder if the voters will vote someone similar in next time, or the time after that. You can't unset the precedent of having Trump as President.

True.

Choosing terrible leaders doesn't half shake faith in the people that chose the leader: and whilst leaders might go in the scale of years, voters die in the scale of decades. This is a similar problem faced by the Labour Party in the UK. If the party selects numpties as leaders, what does that say about the party?

Which, again, I think is an unfair idea.

The Republicans in Power were keen to expunge votes in their controlled districts that they didn't like. Trump actually lost the popular vote by 3 million. And Republicans Redmap was put into secret action six years prior to make sure the Republican vote counted more than any other.

To be faced with this information and then shrug and go "Oh well, he was still voted in" teeters on willful ignorance. This was a legal coup that worked.

But still... Republicans, you had better choices than Trump.

Here's the thing. It's not about fair or unfair, it's about predicting what kind of leadership we may have in the future. If he managed to win that says a lot insofar as it says someone like him can win again potentially

It really doesn't change enough if not everyone likes him if the disliking him section isn't gonna win out. At the end of the day it means we can still end up with another round of Trump or another person like him down the road. If you don't know America won't elect another unstable lunatic then of course you're going to distrust working with them

 

[Hades]

Remember Yovanovitch, the ambassador that got fired for not being totally on board with Trump blackmailing Ukraine into investigating his personal enemies? Well apparently there are now phone record of Trump cronies stalking her every move in Ukraine. The way they talk about her location and security level suggested they might have been hatching a plot to do her harm. That's not a very good look.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1217215352754577409/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1217215352754577409&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231217215352754577409

 

[tstorm823]

Remember Yovanovitch, the ambassador that got fired for not being totally on board with Trump blackmailing Ukraine into investigating his personal enemies? Well apparently there are now phone record of Trump cronies stalking her every move in Ukraine. The way they talk about her location and security level suggested they might have been hatching a plot to do her harm. That's not a very good look.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1217215352754577409/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1217215352754577409&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231217215352754577409

Your characterization of these people as "Trump cronies" isn't accurate. Lev Parnas isn't some lacky being ordered to do these things, he's a jerk entirely on his own and was trying to get people to do things for him, no the other way around.

 

[Agema]

Your characterization of these people as "Trump cronies" isn't accurate. Lev Parnas isn't some lacky being ordered to do these things, he's a jerk entirely on his own and was trying to get people to do things for him, no the other way around.

Your characterisation isn't entirely accurate either.

At this point, Parnas is in a mutually beneficial business relationship with Giuliani, where Giuliani is acting as a representative of Trump intending to find dirt on Biden, and where Yovanovich has been identified as an impediment to doing so.

Parnas is thus employing people to do this stuff for him because of his deal with Trump / Giuliani, and very likely would not have been doing so otherwise.

 

[tstorm823]

Your characterisation isn't entirely accurate either.

At this point, Parnas is in a mutually beneficial business relationship with Giuliani, where Giuliani is acting as a representative of Trump intending to find dirt on Biden, and where Yovanovich has been identified as an impediment to doing so.

Parnas is thus employing people to do this stuff for him because of his deal with Trump / Giuliani, and very likely would not have been doing so otherwise.

Giuliani was asking the incoming government about Burisma because the Prosecutor General of Ukraine had told him they were doing so before backing off that stance. That prosecutor and Giuliani were talking about these things because Lev Parnas was telling them both about it. Lev Parnas seems to have been trying (and sometimes succeeding) to buy influence from Republicans in a myriad of ways, rumors that work against Democrats fits right into that pattern of behavior. I've seen nothing to suggest this was ordered by Trump, I've seen nothing to suggest they had some deal. You're operating under the baseless assumption that Trump is in charge of everything that happens.

 

[Agema]

You're operating under the baseless assumption that Trump is in charge of everything that happens.

Trump is most definitely in charge of this, that much is indisputable. It's what being the boss means. What's less certain is Trump's awareness of what was going on, and precisely what decisions and orders he's given.

I'm sure he was not personally telling Lev Parnas, via Giuliani, to surveil Yovanovich: that sort of decision is below his notice. But he is ultimately responsible for causing Lev Parnas to decide to. Let's be clear: Trump is employing Giuliani specifically to dig dirt for Trump's benefit. What Giuliani then mixes himself up in therefore reflects on Trump. You set your dog loose and it bites someone, the blame doesn't begin and end with the dog.

If that it were all it was, it would be a low baseline of responsibility for Trump. However, Trump is involved more than that, because he actively complained about Yovanovich and pushed her out despite her being of high standing with the State Dept and her colleagues. At that level of involvement, he's put himself in neck deep, actively derailing the career of a US citizen on the hearsay of a dodgy Ukrainian.

Not only that, but this whole Ukrainian conspiracy theory rubbish was known to plenty of key players in the US government and had been dismissed, and the likes of Parnas and Lutsenko were known to be unreliable or corrupt. Yet the president was still pursuing and basing his decisions on this stupid conspiracy theory deriving from bad actors against the much better advice of government professionals.

 

[generals3]

Giuliani was asking the incoming government about Burisma because the Prosecutor General of Ukraine had told him they were doing so before backing off that stance. That prosecutor and Giuliani were talking about these things because Lev Parnas was telling them both about it. Lev Parnas seems to have been trying (and sometimes succeeding) to buy influence from Republicans in a myriad of ways, rumors that work against Democrats fits right into that pattern of behavior. I've seen nothing to suggest this was ordered by Trump, I've seen nothing to suggest they had some deal. You're operating under the baseless assumption that Trump is in charge of everything that happens.

You know there is a point where one doesn't even need evidence of direct involvement to realize something is very wrong.
Trump's surrounding has been involved in unethical and/or criminal affairs ever since his campaign. It has been scandal after scandal ever since. How many people around him have been arrested or been shown to be involved in shady affairs?

Even if we assume for one second Trump is that oblivious and ignorant he has had no direct knowledge of any of these affairs, including this one, doesn't the fact all of this keeps on happening around him say enough?
If an employee of a company is embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal it's likely bad luck for the company, no recruitment/corporate policies are perfect. But if it keeps on happening all the time? Than clearly something is wrong with that company. And it's the same with Donald Trump's White House (of which HE is the boss), at best they have put very little in place to dissuade unethical & criminal behavior because they don't care, at worst they have created an environment which actively promotes it. And even if that may not be an impeachable offense it's one that makes it wholly irresponsible to even consider voting for such scum. Trump has drained your swamp alright, he transformed it into a moral desert.

"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"

 

[tstorm823]

Trump is most definitely in charge of this, that much is indisputable. It's what being the boss means. What's less certain is Trump's awareness of what was going on, and precisely what decisions and orders he's given.

Trump is not the boss of Lev Parnas. Trump and Parnas both employed Giuliani. That does not put Parnas down chain from Trump.

I'm sure he was not personally telling Lev Parnas, via Giuliani, to surveil Yovanovich: that sort of decision is below his notice. But he is ultimately responsible for causing Lev Parnas to decide to. Let's be clear: Trump is employing Giuliani specifically to dig dirt for Trump's benefit. What Giuliani then mixes himself up in therefore reflects on Trump. You set your dog loose and it bites someone, the blame doesn't begin and end with the dog.

Parnas is not Trump's dog. Trump did not set Parnas to do anything. It's unclear whether Trump told Giuliani to dig up dirt or if the dirt was brought to Giuliani and he decided to pursue it further believing it to be his client's benefit. But you're reaching to say Trump hired Giuliani for the sole purpose of oppo research, and you're just assuming from whole cloth that there's a cahin of decisions passing from Trump down to Parnas. Remember, Giuliani wasn't paying Lev Parnas to do anything, Parnas was paying Giuliani.

If that it were all it was, it would be a low baseline of responsibility for Trump. However, Trump is involved more than that, because he actively complained about Yovanovich and pushed her out despite her being of high standing with the State Dept and her colleagues. At that level of involvement, he's put himself in neck deep, actively derailing the career of a US citizen on the hearsay of a dodgy Ukrainian.

Trump didn't push her out, he recalled her to America. She still has her career, just not the same position. Which, based on recent evidence, is probably not an unwise decision considering there was an active campaign to discredit her and some wannabe who tried (and failed) to buy his way into Republican Party politics who was stalking her towards the end of her appointment there. Just a reminder, she was told to return to the US for her own security and well-being, that she had done nothing wrong, but that there was a concerted campaign of unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives.

I'm sure you take that to mean Trump is involved in conspiracies and has questionable motives, the news certainly took it that way, but is it not reasonable to withdraw an ambassador because someone like Lev Parnas is trying to take her down?

Not only that, but this whole Ukrainian conspiracy theory rubbish was known to plenty of key players in the US government and had been dismissed, and the likes of Parnas and Lutsenko were known to be unreliable or corrupt. Yet the president was still pursuing and basing his decisions on this stupid conspiracy theory deriving from bad actors against the much better advice of government professionals.

yeah, but plenty of key players in the US government have worked pretty hard to screw Trump over, you can't exactly fault Giuliani for asking for Ukraine's opinion as well.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Your characterization of these people as "Trump cronies" isn't accurate. Lev Parnas isn't some lacky being ordered to do these things, he's a jerk entirely on his own and was trying to get people to do things for him, no the other way around.

No one -- and I mean NO ONE -- should trust what Parnas says without corresponding evidence that supports his claim, but he's a liar and a fraud and a grifter and, most likely, a career criminal. However...

I've seen nothing to suggest this was ordered by Trump, I've seen nothing to suggest they had some deal. You're operating under the baseless assumption that Trump is in charge of everything that happens.

....the problem for you, Tstorm, is that he *does* appear to have corresponding evidence. The Giuliani letter to Zelensky, for example, draws a straight line to Trump. So either the letter is fake, or Rudy was lying and he did this all on his own (which is easy enough for Trump to clear up by saying as much) or....he WAS involved and was directing this effort all along.

And if you read that letter and still don't think there's "nothing to suggest this was ordered by Trump," then I humbly suggest you're in extreme denial.
https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/1217814228020625408

Also, regardless of what you think, the Ukrainian government thinks Parnas' evidence is credible enough that they've launched an investigation into the surveillance of former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch by Rudy's associates.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christopherm51/ukraine-impeachment-lev-parnas-marie-yovanovitch

Oh and one last thing -- The GAO investigation into the Ukraine funding hold is pretty damning, you should definitely read it.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

 

[Agema]

It's unclear whether Trump told Giuliani to dig up dirt or if the dirt was brought to Giuliani and he decided to pursue it further believing it to be his client's benefit.

I just do not get your weird fixation with who initially brought what to whom. It doesn't matter. Either way Giuliani is pursuing what is known to be a phantom, engaging unsafe sources. And Trump, with access to much better information, is basing government policy on it.

But you're reaching to say Trump hired Giuliani for the sole purpose of oppo research,

I never said Trump hired Giuliani for any sole purpose. I simply said that Giuliani is paid by and thus representing Trump, and Giuliani is digging for dirt for Trump in Ukraine. Both are true. He is clearly digging so with Trump's knowledge, and Trump was making decisions and social media tweets that can only realistically be based on Giuliani's information so he's being told what's going on by Giualiani - certainly enough to hold him a fair degree of culpability.

and you're just assuming from whole cloth that there's a cahin of decisions passing from Trump down to Parnas. Remember, Giuliani wasn't paying Lev Parnas to do anything, Parnas was paying Giuliani.

Parnas had paid Giuliani at some point for some services for his US business. However, in terms of Ukraine the evidence so far points that Parnas (and Fruman) were contracted by Giualiani:

"Because of my Ukrainian background and my contacts there, I became like Rudy?s assistant, his investigator. I don?t do anything on my own. I don?t lobby people. I go get information. I set up a meeting. I make sure that the call went right. I make sure the translation is done right."

Trump didn't push her out, he recalled her to America.

Oh for heaven's sake, please don't insult us with that absurd spin. We have multiple sources indicating that Trump was personally aiming at her removal from post. Giuliani ran a smear campaign against her, and Trump allies (like your favourite journalist of the moment, John Solomon) ran one in the USA. Giuliani even said somewhere back towards the end of 2019 he needed her removed because she would make his job harder digging dirt.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/us/politics/giuliani-yovanovitch-ukraine.html

...considering there was an active campaign to discredit her...

That would be the campaign orchestrated by Donald J. Trump's own private, personal lawyer, with Trump's knowledge?

Oh dear lord. You are seriously arguing that Trump was supporting a smear campaign to fire a government employee from her post, and when he eventually had her fired, it was a virtuous act to protect her from the smear campaign. Christ.

yeah, but plenty of key players in the US government have worked pretty hard to screw Trump over, you can't exactly fault Giuliani for asking for Ukraine's opinion as well.

No, I can totally fault Giuliani for uncritically accepting dodgy and corrupt Ukrainians just because they happened to be saying what he and his boss wanted to hear. I can fault Trump even more for taking this over the better information available from the State Dept.

 

[Agema]

...

In general terms, I might refer you to:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kirstjen-nielsen-quits-trump-tensions-homeland-security-white-house-a8859436.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/15/donald-trump-kirstjen-nielsen-border-a-very-stable-genius

I think this is kind of useful, because it is a snippet that reveals to us what sort of guy Trump is. You want to portray him as some absent, well-intentioned doofus brought into trouble by malign individuals around him.

He is not. He is a bullying, self-absorbed authoritarian with who expects to get his own way and ruthlessly removes the people who don't get him his way. His cabinet is cowed and supine. He has scant regard for or even what his actual powers are, and what is reasonable, feasible and ethical conduct for a president. That's precisely the sort of reason his hold on the Ukraine aid just got declared illegal. He doesn't care: he thinks it should be his right to do it like he's some sort of absolute ruler.

And the stupid thing is that this was evident before he became president, because it's all manifested in his behaviours before he became president - all the revelling in power, cheating, self-absorption, braggadocio, frauds and more. The leopard has not changed its spots.

 

[tstorm823]

No one -- and I mean NO ONE -- should trust what Parnas says without corresponding evidence that supports his claim, but he's a liar and a fraud and a grifter and, most likely, a career criminal. However...

You'd have been better off stopping at that.

....the problem for you, Tstorm, is that he *does* appear to have corresponding evidence. The Giuliani letter to Zelensky, for example, draws a straight line to Trump. So either the letter is fake, or Rudy was lying and he did this all on his own (which is easy enough for Trump to clear up by saying as much) or....he WAS involved and was directing this effort all along.

Well, Trump is saying he doesn't know about that letter, but taking that as a lie and assuming the letter is both real and accurate, the tie to Trump is that Trump knew and consented to Giuliani requesting a meeting with Zelenskyy. That's a smoking gun that Trump was "directing this effort"? Geez, that's a low standard of evidence. It's not disputed that Giuliani tried to meet with Zelenskyy, nor is it likely that Trump didn't know about it. But it matters why.

People are acting like Trump said "Hey, Giuliani, get me some dirt on that... uhhh... Biden guy. Gotta kill his campaign before he beats me." And Giuliani went "okiedokie baws-man" and skipped off to hang with Lev Parnas. But the evidence doesn't suggest that, the evidence suggests Parnas was trying to use both money and political dirt from Ukraine to buy influence with US Republicans. Agema may claim not to see the difference, but there is an immense difference between Trump asking people to dig up dirt for him and trying to get foreign governments to do it for him, and Trump being given dirt and asking relevant foreign governments to verify. Those are ethically opposite things.

Also, regardless of what you think, the Ukrainian government thinks Parnas' evidence is credible enough that they've launched an investigation into the surveillance of former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch by Rudy's associates.

You mean their investigating Lev Parnas and his associates. Like, duh, Lev Parnas' evidence of his own wrong-doing is justification for investigating it.

I just do not get your weird fixation with who initially brought what to whom. It doesn't matter. Either way Giuliani is pursuing what is known to be a phantom, engaging unsafe sources. And Trump, with access to much better information, is basing government policy on it.

It matters incredibly. If Ukrainians told Trump that those things were going on, asking the new Ukrainian President is an absolutely reasonable course of action. It's only an abuse of power if, as you assume, Trump was telling people to take down Biden and that's how the whole affair was instigated. There is no evidence of that. Imma skip ahead real quick...

"Because of my Ukrainian background and my contacts there, I became like Rudy?s assistant, his investigator. I don?t do anything on my own. I don?t lobby people. I go get information. I set up a meeting. I make sure that the call went right. I make sure the translation is done right."

Are you actually taking this statement seriously? The man's been arrested for funneling illegal money into US campaigns in order to buy favors for his so-called contacts in Ukraine. You cannot possibly take that comment seriously. The most damning part of his evidence is the part where he cooperates with some hack "former candidate" to stalk Yovanovich, and you think he was just putting people in contact with each other? Lol.

Oh dear lord. You are seriously arguing that Trump oversaw a smear campaign to fire a government employee from her post, and when he eventually got her fired, it was a virtuous act to protect her from the smear campaign.

I'm not arguing that. Trump didn't oversee the smear campaign, Lev Parnas did. Trump wasn't the orchestrator, Trump was the mark.

 

[Agema]

It matters incredibly. If Ukrainians told Trump that those things were going on, asking the new Ukrainian President is an absolutely reasonable course of action. It's only an abuse of power if, as you assume, Trump was telling people to take down Biden and that's how the whole affair was instigated. There is no evidence of that. Imma skip ahead real quick...

We've been over this a thousand times. When you say "Ukrainians" you mean one Ukrainian with a dismal reputation, even suspected of corruption, who publicly retracted anyway. Furthermore that the US government through various agencies had had its finger on the pulse and deemed the accusations of no credibility.

It's an abuse of power if Trump was at any point asking people to take down Biden, unless that evidence was of legal standard to justify so and pursued through appropriate channels. Rather than threatening a foreign president, for instance.

Are you actually taking this statement seriously? The man's been arrested for funneling illegal money into US campaigns in order to buy favors for his so-called contacts in Ukraine.

Parnas is untrustworthy. But one way or another, a) he was hand-in-glove operating with Giuliani, b) Giuliani was clearly taking the initiative with all sorts of moves to actively pursue leads in Ukraine including c) actively trying to bring down the ambassador (even by his own admission). So as it is perfectly credible that Giuliani asked Parnas to work for him and his ends, I see no good reason to casually dismiss it. It is more credible than Parnas expending his own time, effort and resources for his own amusement.

I'm not arguing that. Trump didn't oversee the smear campaign, Lev Parnas did. Trump wasn't the orchestrator, Trump was the mark.

Trump was obviously de facto "signing off" on that smear campaign because of how closely he's connected to it and taking action based on it, and Giuliani's influence. And it's Giuliani's smear campaign, not Parnas's. As pointed out before, Giuliani's on record admitting he wanted Yovanovich replaced.

And even if we take your word, if Trump (and therefore also Giuliani) was a "mark", he's dangerously incompetent, because it means the US president got successfully played by a small fry ex-Soviet businessman. That's a scary prospect.