Image 01 Image 03

Trump Ukraine Transcript: Asked for Biden Review, But Made No Mention of Withholding Military Aid

Trump Ukraine Transcript: Asked for Biden Review, But Made No Mention of Withholding Military Aid

Trump: “The president [of Ukraine] himself just came out with a statement saying there was absolutely no pressure put on him.”

President Donald Trump released the transcript of his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that took place on July 25 from 9:03 AM to 9:33 AM.

It shows that he asked Zelensky for a review on Vice President Joe Biden’s family dealings in Ukraine.

However, Trump did not threaten to withhold “military aid as part of a quid-pro-quo, as Democrats have suggested in pressing forward with impeachment.”

The Transcript

From Fox News:

It begins with the president congratulating Zelensky on his election victory, before Trump eventually broaches the subject former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” Trump said in the phone call. “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me.”

That refers to Joe Biden, while vice president, urging Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, while Shokin was investigating the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings — where Hunter Biden was on the board. Biden has maintained that corruption concerns prompted his intervention.

Zelensky told Trump Ukraine’s new prosecutor would look into the controversy surrounding Biden and his son Hunter Biden working with a Ukrainian company:

“He or she will look into the situation specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue, the issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and we will work on the investigation of the case.”

The president told Zelensky he wanted his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and Attorney General Bill Barr to get involved.

“I will have Mr. Giuliani give you call and I’m also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom if it. I’m sure you will figure it out,” he said.

I see on Twitter people saying it implicates Trump, but it lacks the quid-pro-quo the Democrats latched onto as an excuse for an impeachment inquiry. Supposedly Trump threatened not to hand over $400 million of military aid to Ukraine.

Yet, in the transcript, Zelensky says the matter of Biden is also important to him:

Ukraine Call Transcript by Fox News on Scribd

Trump Responds

Trump responded to the transcript during a meeting at the United Nations. From Mediaite:

“The president [of Ukraine] himself just came out with a statement saying there was absolutely no pressure put on him,” Trump claimed. “What I do want to see is I want to see other countries helping Ukraine also, not just us. As usual, the United States helps and nobody else is there. So I want to see other countries help.”

“Just so you understand, it’s the single greatest witch hunt in American history, probably in history, but in American history. It’s a disgraceful thing,” he continued. “The letter was a great letter, meaning the letter revealing the call. That was done at the insistence of myself and other people that read it. It was a friendly letter. There was no pressure. The way you had that built up, that call, it was going to be the call from hell. It turned out to be a nothing call, other than a lot of people said I never knew you could be so nice.”

“Part of the problem you have is you have the fake news, you have a lot of corrupt reporting. You have some very fine reporters and journalists, but you have a lot of corrupt reporters, a lot of corrupt journalists,” the President declared. “If you noticed, the stock market went up when they saw the nonsense. All of a sudden the stock market went down very substantially yesterday when they saw a charge. After they read the charge, the stock market went up very substantially. We have created the greatest economy in the history of our country, the greatest economy in the world. Had my opponent won, China would right now be the number one economy by far.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


So, once again, they were bleating “facts” that weren’t backed up

    fishstick in reply to Frank G. | September 25, 2019 at 10:55 am

    even still, the Dems have gone too far now to try to not spin this as “quid pro quo”

    without realizing it is a backdoor for the Republicans to potentially investigate Biden’s scandal here with Ukraine

    the real problem the Dems have though is the whistleblower complaint in and of itself being eerily similar to how the Steele dossier was used

    we just learned now the complaint went through official channels – got bumped – then was selectively leaked out as “verified” goods for an impeachment call

    and remember – this whistleblower seems to have had no direct contact with Trump but whose complaint is filled with multiple allegations

    the Dems just continue to dig their way out of a hole here

First, had Trump threatened to withhold aid it would not be illegal or unconstitutional. The USA can put conditions upon it’s aid and does all the time.

Of course, that’s not what occurred. Much of the fabricated Trump collusion was centered in the former corrupt regime in the Ukraine, so naturally in his defense the president’s defense team are investigating the Ukraine situation

Now, we often say the democrats accuse you of crimes they have actually committed, which is the case here:

    legacyrepublican in reply to Barry. | September 25, 2019 at 10:50 am

    Thank you for posting the link.

    Very interesting since in the transcript the President Zelensky said he got just got rid of Yuriy Lutsenko.

    And the letter in your link shows that the Democrats were willing to threaten the Ukraine with some sort of sanctions.

    Can someone start saying “obstruction of justice” when it comes to Democratic interference with other nations.

    Milhouse in reply to Barry. | September 25, 2019 at 10:55 am

    First, had Trump threatened to withhold aid it would not be illegal or unconstitutional. The USA can put conditions upon it’s aid and does all the time.

    Straw man. Nobody has ever suggested that the USA can’t put conditions on its aid. But it is utterly illegal, and an impeachable offense, for the president to do so for his own benefit rather than that of the nation, just as it’s illegal and impeachable for him to take any official action for his own benefit. That’s what Biden seems to have done, and if so it makes him unfit to be president (even if he had been fit before).

    The problem, as usual, is determining whether some official action was taken in good faith for the nation’s benefit, or was it for the private benefit of the person doing it.

    For instance, Biden will undoubtedly claim that he got the Ukranian prosecutor fired because he was corrupt and incompetent, and the fact that this might benefit Hunter was the last thing on his mind, if in fact he was aware of it at all. To which we all say BS, but a prosecutor might have difficulty actually proving that he’s lying.

    The same thing applies here. Trump’s words sound like he’s not concerned for his own benefit, but is only concerned because the story as he heard it sounds horrible. He doesn’t know details, but it needs investigating. On the surface this sounds fine, but if we had a transcript of Biden’s call it would probably also sound fine on the surface, even though we all know what he really meant. Trump-haters can easily say they see through Trump’s words and his real purpose was to get Biden. To me this seems only marginally plausible and not at all likely, but if you’re already convinced that Trump is the Devil then this is how you’re going to see it. Hopefully most people will see through it.

      mailman in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2019 at 11:02 am

      Which law in particular are you referring to?

        Tom Servo in reply to mailman. | September 25, 2019 at 11:12 am

        “Which law in particular are you referring to?”

        Since you asked:

        US Code § 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
        An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations.

          So that’s the one Biden violated while he was VP.

          Tom Servo in reply to Tom Servo. | September 25, 2019 at 11:44 am

          Yes, Biden violated that. So did Hillary when she solicited millions of dollars from Foreign Governments to be donated to the Clinton Foundation.

          Trump politely asked one question about this. IMPEACH!!!!

          Ghost Rider in reply to Tom Servo. | September 25, 2019 at 11:54 am

          Seems like just about everyone in Congress has violated that law at one time or another.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Tom Servo. | September 25, 2019 at 12:15 pm

          Not sure you understand the law here.

          dystopia in reply to Tom Servo. | September 25, 2019 at 12:22 pm

          If that law was literally enforced nearly all of Congress would be in jail.

          mailman in reply to Tom Servo. | September 25, 2019 at 12:39 pm

          DOJ confirmed back in August that no violations had taken place.

          Therefore no law was broken.

          Dont worry though darling, next week you will get something else to obsess over (and be wrong once more).

          starride in reply to Tom Servo. | September 25, 2019 at 1:07 pm

          That is exactly whatvit looksblike Biden did.

          On the otherhand Article 2 Section 3 says the president is required to uphold all the laws uf the U.S.A. So regardless of whether it helps him politically or not, if the president suspects a a U.S. person or company of corruption, he is duty bound to ask for an investigation.

          CorkyAgain in reply to Tom Servo. | September 25, 2019 at 7:20 pm

          I can see how Biden is probably guilty of actions designed to financially benefit himself and/or his son and thus in violation of the statute.

          But how does Trump benefit, other than politically (perhaps), from asking for Ukraine’s assistance in investigating Biden’s actions?

          Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | September 25, 2019 at 8:22 pm

          Getting dirt on a political opponent is a personal benefit.

      Bless your heart Milhouse. You just can’t help yourself

        cucha in reply to rdm. | September 25, 2019 at 11:52 am

        I wish it were possible to block NPCs like Milhouse. They’re a waste of bandwidth.

        johnny dollar in reply to rdm. | September 25, 2019 at 12:06 pm

        I honestly don’t understand the hostility toward Milhouse’s comment It seems logical enough, and he makes a (largely neutral) point about the difficulty of proving the mental state of a (hypothetical) defendant, whether it is Biden or Trump.

          No, he typically is antiTrump and state things inaccurately. Like he does here in defense of had Trump done it.

          It would no be personal gain for the United States to investigate a crime conducted by the VP of the United States. Period.

          It’s a fabrication, which he does all the time.

          Barry, you are a piece of sh*t and a d*mned liar. How dare you accuse me of fabrication? I dare you to name three things I’ve stated inaccurately in the last three months.

          As for being anti-Trump, that is not anything to be ashamed of. However good a president Trump has been so far, you cannot deny that he is a con man, a grifter, a dishonest person, an adulterer, a pig-ignorant boor, and a moral degenerate. Or that he was a liberal Democrat and the Clintons’ best friend until he decided to run for the same job as her. Yes, he’s mostly done well so far. That’s good, and I have never denied him credit for the good things he’s done. But it doesn’t change who he is.

          The Livewire in reply to johnny dollar. | September 25, 2019 at 4:32 pm

          While I will disagree with Milhouse on a lot of things, he’s not wrong here citing the law. I just don’t think it applies.

          ” he is a con man, a grifter, a dishonest person, an adulterer, a pig-ignorant boor, and a moral degenerate”

          Name three things…

          “Or that he was a liberal Democrat and the Clintons’ best friend until he decided to run for the same job as her.”

          There’s two right here. He was never a liberal democrat or the Clinton’s best friend. Since you’re not stupid, you are a liar.

          “he is a con man, a grifter, a dishonest person, an adulterer, a pig-ignorant boor, and a moral degenerate”

          And here we have #3 through #7:

          He is not a con man
          He is not a grifter
          He is not a dishonest person
          He is not a pig-ignorant boor
          He is not a moral degenerate

          I’ll leave the door open for adulterer where he can join approximately 50% or more of the rest of the male population.

          So, we’re up to seven (7) fabrications just in the same comment.

          He was never a liberal democrat or the Clinton’s best friend.

          He certainly was. It was no secret. The evidence was everywhere, and you are the first person I’ve ever heard try to deny it. Liar.

          He is not a con man
          He is not a grifter
          He is not a dishonest person
          He is not a pig-ignorant boor
          He is not a moral degenerate

          Again, all of those things are documented beyond anyone’s ability to deny it. His fraudulent business practices are notorious. He routinely stiffed suppliers — just talk to anyone who has ever done business with him. His own “co-author” said he never read anything. Every word he has spoken in decades of public appearances show him to be pig-ignorant and degenerate. Start with his equating his risking VD by sleeping with married women to the bravery of the soldiers in Vietnam. How can anyone defend that?

          “all of those things are documented”

          No, actually they are not. they are simply false accusations by conmen like you, haters.

          Just to take one of your filthy cons, the “he routinely stiffed suppliers”. Anyone that does business in construction over many years is going to have a supplier that did a shoddy job/supplied the wrong thing/was late in shipment, and was therefore penalized. They all claim it was the builder. Thousands of subcontractors and suppliers were paid and have no issue, thousands. It’s just made up conman bullshit that people like you, likely without the intelligence to understand it, push.

          Every bit of your crap is the same. It depends upon not looking at it closely, cherry picking the complaint from thousands of non complainers.

          Hatred is all you have, it defines you. Sad.

          “The evidence was everywhere, and you are the first person I’ve ever heard try to deny it. Liar.”

          You’re nuts.

          Clintons best friend. Right. And you’ve never heard that denied. Maybe that’s because NO ONE is pig ignorant enough to level such an accusation.

          You just make stuff up. Or, more likely, you read it at the prog websites and repeat it.

        healthguyfsu in reply to rdm. | September 25, 2019 at 3:11 pm

        Milhouse the robot executing the Ragspierre program and the insults and curses come out!

        Calm down and compose yourself, google is your friend.

      PrincetonAl in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2019 at 11:24 am

      It isn’t wrong to ask someone to look into whether there was corruption on the part of a US citizen. That is the difference between Trump and potentially Biden. Biden is doing it on behalf – allegedly – of a family member who may – allegedly – have done something shady.

      That is very different than someone asking someone to look into whether a crime was committed. Worlds apart.

      It doesn’t matter whether Trump benefits or not from it being a crime. Not even the state of mind matters in these kinds of cases in state law – State of Texas ruled that you can’t be impeach someone for carrying out a legal action of office because you don’t like why someone did. If it’s legal it’s legal.

      If an investigation in the US is ill-predicated, eg fraudulent FISA warrants, that is different than just asking someone to look into it.

      Not sure why people try to conflate the two as the same (well, some I do, it’s politics and they aren’t being honest), because they are not at all.

      Finally – any one remember Senate Democrats asking Ukraine to look into things during the Mueller investigation. Cause I kinda do – can we impeach some Democrat Senators?

      Sounds like collusion and all kinds of bad stuff right there.

        Milhouse in reply to PrincetonAl. | September 25, 2019 at 3:28 pm

        1. Biden denies that what he did had anything to do with helping Hunter. He didn’t even know Hunter was involved in any way, however tangentially. His reasons for wanting the prosecutor fired were 100% pure and disinterested. Nobody believes him, but how would you prove that he’s lying?

        If you are predisposed to love Biden and hate Trump (in other words, if you’re the MSM) you will say exactly what you just said, but in reverse. “That is the difference between Trump and Biden; Biden did it out of genuine concern about corruption, while Trump did it to damage a political rival.” Of course that is BS, but it’s enough to create confusion in readers who don’t know much about the subject.

        2. If Perry had gone after Lehmberg for personal gain, either because she was investigating someone close to him or because she refused to investigate his opponent, he would have lost his case and been convicted. His actions against Lehmberg were legal because he did it for the public benefit, not for his own private benefit.

        (Oh, and the court of course did not rule that he could not be impeached. The TX legislature is free to impeach a governor for any reason it likes, and no court has any right to an opinion on the matter. In Perry’s case, of course, the legislature had no wish to impeach him, so the whole question never came up.)

        3. No, you can’t impeach Democrat senators, because the whole concept of impeachment doesn’t apply to legislators. But yes, they did exactly what they accused Trump of doing, which is par for the course for Democrats.

      MattMusson in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2019 at 11:25 am

      You mean like Obama threatened to withhold funds if the Ukrainian investigation was not dropped and the prosecutor fired?

      Are you saying that was illegal?

        Milhouse in reply to MattMusson. | September 25, 2019 at 3:07 pm

        That was Biden, and I said so explicitly, so why are you asking? Can you not read? Of course Biden denies that he had any such motive, but nobody believes him.

      A package of 100% baloney. You provide the only straw to this discussion.

      It is not a crime for the United States to require as a condition of foreign aid, an investigation of a crime committed by the Vice President of the United States. Doing so is not your strawman of “personal gain”, it is in the interests of the United States.

      2nd, Defense of the President of the United States against illegal conducted sham investigations conducted by the former corrupt administration is also in the interest of the United States.

      You are off base and do not know what you’re talking about, so you invent crap. No sale.


The Democrats and the media are going to look so bad.

I have to believe that Trump and his team set this whole thing up. That they leaked to someone they knew would scream bloody murder and get the Democrats and media riled up.

And then just ripped the rug from under them.

Oh man I bet Pelosi is pissed off right now that she let her nuts talk her into an “impeachment inquiry”….. LOL

    An “impeachment inquiry” that isn’t because she hasn’t put it up for a vote.

    Pelosi’s “impeachment inquiry” is like Kim “Smollet” Foxx’s “recusal”. It only exists in her head.

      TheOldZombie in reply to cucha. | September 25, 2019 at 12:07 pm

      Agreed. She used the weasel word inquiry. She didn’t want to put people on the record to vote for an actual impeachment hearing.

      But what just happened still must make her very mad because she’s a pretty good politician and she knows that this will be used against the Democrats in 2020.

Still, President Trump should be careful concerning Joe Biden.

Anyone who can put Corn Pop in his place shouldn’t be taken lightly.

    I’m sure you are being sarcastic, but the reality of the situation is that Biden has been in politics for quite(gotten quite rich at it) a while and I’m sure he has a lot of favors he can call in, could be why Pelosi reevaluated the impeachment.

Man, it’s a good thing that POTUS didn’t ship pallets of cash to Iran’s despots, clandestinely, in the dead of night, to sweeten a vanity-driven, self-congratulatory and derelict total capitulation to that regime, laughably termed a “deal.”

Further, it’s a really good thing that Trump didn’t quash an active DEA effort to stop Iranian terror proxy group Hezb’allah’s multi-billion-dollar U.S. dope-peddling operations, to grease the skids for the aforementioned capitulation to Iran, with callous indifference to American lives and societal safety.

Both of these lawless and corrupt acts were done by the sainted Obama, and, of course, at the time, the fawning, boot-licking, worshipful mainstream media lackey-prostitute-propagandists couldn’t be bothered to proffer even a scintilla of criticism of St. Obama, ever. And, I won’t even get into “Fast and Furious” and the IRS targeting scandal, nor, Obama Administration efforts to destroy Trump pre and post-election.

    Milhouse in reply to guyjones. | September 25, 2019 at 10:57 am

    Ah, but he didn’t do those things for his personal benefit. He did them because he wanted to scr*w America.

      mailman in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2019 at 11:03 am

      Creating a lasting legacy is solely for his personal benefit (given there is absolutely NO benefit for America in allowing Iran to become armed with nukes).

        Milhouse in reply to mailman. | September 25, 2019 at 11:10 am

        A “lasting legacy” would only happen if this did end up benefiting America, which we all know it won’t. So what personal benefit did he get? Nothing but the satisfaction of taking America down a notch.

          mailman in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2019 at 12:43 pm

          A lasting legacy of Barry, the bringer if light’s, amazingness solely benefits BarryO. Allowing Iran to become a nuclear power does NOT benefit Anerica. This is why Barry moved mountains to help Iran…it was something HE wanted that would only ever benefit him because it would be his legacy.

          Probably a difficult concept for the worlds second largest brain to comprehend dollhouse but do at least attempt to keep up.

          healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2019 at 3:13 pm

          Which is a benefit to an anti-American regime like the one spearheaded by his puppeteers (including Val Jar Binks)

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2019 at 3:41 pm

          Are you dim, or just drunk? Everything you write is completely backwards. The only way the deal could possibly give 0bama a “lasting legacy” would be if it actually did benefit America. Since we all know that it doesn’t, where’s the legacy? He won’t go down in history as a president who enhanced America’s position in the world, he’ll go down as one who did America serious damage. That’s not a benefit to him, it’s harm. So what did he get out of it? Only the satisfaction of his personal grudge against America.

          mailman in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2019 at 3:58 pm

          I know darling…its a tough concept to comprehend that Barry, peace be upon him, would be putting his personal benefit ahead of that of his country.

          But given Barry, peace be upon him, hated America it’s no wonder he thought more about HIS personal legacy than he did about what was actually good for his country.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2019 at 8:30 pm

          You are insane. What personal benefit? What legacy? Doing something that he knew would harm America gave him no legacy and no benefit. He did it out of hatred and nothing else.

          I hate to break the news to you, but Obama defines his legacy as hatred and destruction of America. He is proud of that.

      But you presume “personal benefit” can only be financial. To egoists such as Obama (and, to be fair, Trump), reputation (and seeming to be smart), is more important than money, to which they have virtually unlimited access.

        healthguyfsu in reply to Obie1. | September 25, 2019 at 3:14 pm

        Actually, he doesn’t presume that at all. He said Trump’s alleged quid pro quo, had it existed, would have been illegal because of political gain (not financial).

        Obama’s motives were also political gain, so I don’t know how Milly computes that reasoning through his circuits.

        Milhouse in reply to Obie1. | September 25, 2019 at 3:36 pm

        I made no such presumption. On the contrary, the benefit to Trump from having Hunter Biden investigated is not financial, but very real nonetheless, and if it could be shown that he pressured the Ukraine to investigate Biden for that reason, then he should be impeached. Nor was Biden’s benefit from having the Ukranian prosecutor fired financial, but I’m sure you’ll agree it was real.

        But what persona benefit could 0bama possibly get from the Iran deal? It doesn’t enhance his reputation, it destroys it. It could only enhance his reputation if America benefited from the deal, but of course we all know it won’t. So the only benefit he could get is the happy feeling of having taken America down a notch.

          It enhances his reputation _with the people he actually cares about_ which is not of necessity the American peo0epeople. That is the benefit, Milhouse. Stop with the angels on the head of a pin sophistry.

JackinSilverSpring | September 25, 2019 at 10:54 am

The DemoncRat Party is reliving Watergate. That party should rot in hell for the abuse it has heaped on President Trump and for how it has divided this great country.

This is all just a stunt to keep the negative press alive….which means to keep the media steadily on their path without cooling. So expect there to be baseless claims about the transcripts, other whistleblowers perhaps, etc. Whatever it takes to keep this next “Trump is Hitler” type of attack alive. Then onto the next one. But since it’s not yet ready, this will be kept alive.

The game is simple > You need mostly negative press so that there is a very high probability that internet search results will turn up mostly links to negative pieces. That makes it easy for Alphabets and Facebooks of the world to relax on manipulating results. When you can create a digital pile that is perhaps 85% negative, your work is done.

The absence of an explicit threat is not really dispositive, because the aid had just been cut a few days earlier. The call took place in that context, so it would be on both men’s minds and didn’t need to be mentioned. If you were the Ukranian president, and the US cut its aid and then soon after the US president called, you’d pay very close attention to his demands, even if they’re couched as suggestions, and you’d understand that the resumption of aid depends on doing as he says.

Is that really what was going on here? In Zelensky’s mind, quite likely. In Trump’s mind? I doubt it, but I can’t definitively rule it out.

Still, the most straightforward reading is very probably the correct one. Trump had heard vague stories about corruption in the Ukraine and was genuinely concerned about them, and didn’t want to be throwing good money down a hole, so he put in a word at the top to ensure it would be looked into and cleaned up. Which is his job as president, so good on him.

    Dr. Ransom in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2019 at 11:16 am

    The lack of an explicit threat IS pretty Dang dispositive. Unless you think the man vested with the full power of the executive branch can have his decisions be scrutinized an account of such pitifully weak inferences. The Democrats will make that attempt for sure, but a similar legal analysis made toward anyone other than Trump would get laughed off in a second.

    You can’t read minds. You can’t read Zelensky’s mind.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    What was the context for the call? Do you have any idea?

    Apparently not, or it will ruin your mind reading narrative.

      Milhouse in reply to Barry. | September 25, 2019 at 8:37 pm

      You can’t read minds. You can’t read Zelensky’s mind. […] What was the context for the call?

      There’s no need to read minds to know what was on his. US aid had just been cut days before. That was the context in which the call was made. This is undisputed. And in that context if Trump meant to threaten him he didn’t need to mention it. And whether or not Trump meant to threaten him, Zelensky would have been a fool not to take everything Trump said as orders that he would have to obey for the aid to be resumed. I don’t think Trump really did mean it that way, but Zelensky would have had to read minds to know that.

        Right, you are a mind reader. In reality, you are a mindless reader.

        You still don’t know the context of the call.

        You’re making stuff up because you’re deranged with Trump hatred.

        You fail again. You always fail. You have failed for three years trying to pin something on Trump.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2019 at 1:05 pm

    Give it a rest, Millie. Time’s up.

      I think Milhouse is doing a good job of explaining what the Democrat’s arguments are. They’re not good arguments, and they aren’t going to work, but he is correct, this is what they are saying. You can’t fight back against your enemies effectively if you don’t understand them.

      And Milhouse has explicitly said he doesn’t agree with them, he’s just telling you what they are.

        Milhouse is a neverTrumper and remains one. He never misses an opportunity to tag Trump with some hysterical impeachable offense. he supports the impeachment of Trump and has said so multiple times including how much he would like to see VP Pence replace him.

        So no, his motives are not to tell us what we all already know.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2019 at 3:15 pm

    If it had already been removed, what is the threat?

    That’s like asking for a bribe after giving away the info for free.

      Huh? That makes no sense. The aid had been cut. Then the president calls with some “polite requests”. Only an idiot wouldn’t connect the two, and do whatever the president asked so he would resume the aid.

    casualobserver in reply to Milhouse. | September 25, 2019 at 5:37 pm

    Good luck with THAT argument. Of course, using it will make impeachment a routine for every future opposition party. “It’s not what you meant, Mr. President. It’s how we perceive it…” Works on Twitter….maybe House Dems hope it will work in real life among thinking voters, too.

But everybody’s missing the impeachable offense committed! The president of The Ukraine stayed in Trump Tower! How did the entire Democrat-Media Complex miss that? They must have lost their fastball overnight, because that just reeks of something.

I think the rakes the DMC keep stepping on are freshly from the Augean stables. Immortal cows…..

The only question in my mind is whether Trump’s people are behind the whole thing.

Think about it: There was no “quid pro quo.” The Ds will huff and puff once again, and not blow the White House down. What this WILL do is focus a lot of attention on the Biden family’s rampant corruption. It will also tie the media in knots and make them look even more foolish.

This is such a big net plus for Trump. It’s going to kill Biden’s chances, further degrade the media’s credibility, and make the Democratic Party look really bad in the eyes of independent voters.

Cooperation with Ukraine…that sounds good. I wonder if this cooperation could be timed so that Hunter Biden is fighting extradition to the Ukraine during the Democrat Primaries.

Mitt Romney is on the wrong side of history – again.

It was an obvious trap as many analysts on both the left an right said, but the Democrats were stupid enough to walk right into it.

Now Biden “has some ‘splainin’ to do”.

I wonder what Trump and Guiliani have waiting for Fauxcahontas.

Meanwhile the impeachment clown car careens cliffward, because Pelosi cut the break lines.

OK, Trump IS trying to destroy the Democratic party and make it go the way of the Whigs. I think there will be a tiny whiny commie party left, but the middle is firmly in the GOP, and it is governing well.

Z: Zo Donalt! How is zee vife?

T: We’re no strangers to love

Z: Is good. So down to business. Concerning Biden …

T: You know the rules and so do I

Z: Vhat are you asking?

T: A full commitment’s what I’m thinking of, I’m telling you, you wouldn’t get this from any other guy

Z: I just vant to tell you how I’m feeling

T: Got to make you understand, Never going to give you up

Z: Never gonna let you down, But vhat about you …

T: Never gonna run around and desert you, Never gonna make you cry, Never gonna say goodbye, Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you

That “whistleblower” is like a random schmuck calling out a strike in a baseball game, based on what he heard a fan say about a basketball game being played in a different city.

The Gruber crowd will believe anything.

buckeyeminuteman | September 25, 2019 at 11:47 am

The bigger question, which nobody is asking—and which has been an issue for decades, is why are we giving so much money in foreign aid to countries all over the world!!?? I would bet almost every country gets some kind of funds from us. Why are American citizens subsidizing security, infrastructure and food the world over? We pay so much in taxes and look how much goes overseas. Trump should do what we elected him to, look after America first.

    This goes back to something Trump has said previously, if you are going to receive American aid then you better be prepared to do as we ask…which makes perfect sense. Why give money to people who are going to stab you in the back.

    When Trump gives aid to Ukraine he is looking out for America. Romney was partially but not totally correct when he said Russia was our greatest global adversary. I would put China on equal footing with Russia.

    It is in our national interest to see Russia diminished economically, the result being they are also diminished militarily. The same with China.

    The problem of course is that the feckless Obama made the problem much worse when he did bugger all when Russia annexed the Crimea, had Russian operatives seize control of eastern Ukraine, and then Obama talked tough on Syria but when push came to shove he ceded our M.E. policy to Russia (and their client Iran).

    Similarly the Obama administration did bugger all when China decided that the US was a paper tiger that could be safely ignored. Obama’s “pivot to Asia” was just empty gas emissions from his mouth. It was really a pivot to toward domestic spending and international decline. So China artificially built up islands in the Spratleys, militarized them, and effectively declared sovereignty of the entire South China Sea. We actually had obligations to other nations in the region. Obligations, like those red lines in Syria, Obama decided to abandon.

    Similarly, when China and Japan clashed over the Senkaku islands Obama decided to sit that one out. Japan, he said, you’re on your own and screw any obligations past administrations may have commited to.

    I never thought it was in our national interest to rearm Japan. But we sure as hell don’t want them to go nuclear which they could in something like five minutes (only a slight exaggeration; all the moving parts are in place).

    You see China in the Pacific has it’s “First Island Chain” strategy, which means they declare sovereignty over much of the Pacific. Actually, declaring sovereignty over the SCS is part of that, as the first island chain extends down through the Japanese main islands, the Ryukus including Okinawa, the Senkakus (that’s why these essentially worthless and uninhabited islands are in China’s opinion worth going to war over) to Taiwan, then down to the Philippines, over to Indonesia to the Malay Peninsula. The Marianas comprise the major portion of the second island chain.

    If you don’t think that preventing China from unilaterally declaring strategic parts of the world’s oceans through which most of the world’s trade transits to be its territorial waters to be in America’s interest I don’t know how you define America’s interests. China insists it has the right to shut down maritime and air traffic in the regions it claims control over, as they did during the Obama administration when it issued a NOTAM (Notice To AirMen) regarding and exclusion zone extending far out into the Pacific when tensions rose in its relations with Taiwan. All commercial air traffic had to request China’s permission to fly through what is legally international air space. And the Obama administration instructed US airlines to comply with China’s demands (although to their credit they did send a couple of B-52 flights through the exclusion zone without requesting permission but it was still kind of a feeble response and China was unimpressed).

    Iran claims the right to shut down the strait of Hormuz whenever it wishes. To which China said, “Oh, you think that’ll disrupt international trade and send economies all acroses the globe into a tailspine (economies that include our vital trading partners such as Japan)? Hold my beer and watch this.”

    We depend on free and fair international trade. We can’t allow countries like Russian and China (and to a lesser extent Iran) to muscle in. Which is what they’re doing. Obama never got this. Trump realizes this, hence aid to Ukraine.

    I agree that much of the aid we provide other countries. Which is why it’s good to see Trump and Modi palling around together. Pakistan is not an ally. India is our natural ally in the region. Similarly it’s hard to see how Germany is an ally when it refuses to meet its NATO obligations and instead decides to enrich Russia by buying natural gas from them instead of us.

    But aid to Ukraine is money well spent.

    We give aid because we get something for it. In the Ukraine’s case we’re propping up an opponent to Russia.

The stench of desperation of the ‘rats is overwhelming.

Grab more popcorn. You are seeing the ‘Rat Party being pulverized in real time.

First – thanks for posting the link to the actual declassified document. Morning Joe apparently retweeted a fake document from the Daily Show. It is important to go to the source document, not others summarizing the source doc.

I also noticed that the Ukrainian President also asked for any information that we had on corruption in the Ukraine.

Romney is “troubled” by the transcript. Weld will be out shortly echoing that sentiment. Very troubling to learn that there was no “there” there. Again.

Once the Dems have swept the deck of the current candidates, we will be hearing a lot from Romney preening for the slot.

Even though the story isn’t developing the way the D’rats want it to, they can still use it. They need to make a case. It doesn’t have to be a winning case, or even a good case; it just has to be something they can yammer about until 2020.

Here, they can get out their old “collusion with a foreign government to influence an American election” hats, change a few names, and wear them again. DJT is trying to get Ukraine to investigate shenanigans involving an opposing Presidential almost-candidate—and the fact that that Biden’s crimes may be real is of no importance. Ukraine’s purported reward for assisting isn’t the essential part of the charge; the mere fact that DJT talked about it will do.

Since the charge is ridiculous, the D’rats will want to drag it out as long as possible; certainly well into 2020. Mueller let them down in two ways—he failed to make a criminal case against DJT, and he finished up too soon, so they couldn’t continue to pretend that there was irrefutable evidence coming along . . . ahhh . . . any day now. So they’ll hold endless hearings, and form committee after committee, all designed to keep this non-issue alive. Nonstop Orange Man Bad headlines are the best they can hope for . . . so they’ll have to do.

The conceptual Holy Grail would be the idea that suggesting to anyone that any investigation of any crimes by any Democrat is, all by itself, an attempt to influence some future election and therefore an impeachable offense. Abuse of office, violation of imaginary Presidential “norms”, blah blah. And the world will be made safe for utterly lawless behavior by Dems.

    Yeah, I don’t get the ‘interfere with an election’ complaint. There hasn’t been a single state primary or caucus yet – no candidate has been selected. So how is it interference with an election?

    Are the Dems of the mindset that to have declared candidacy Biden (et al) are immune from investigation for the appearance of wrongdoing?

The legal points of this could be argued for years. And, as the presumption of innocence applies in Congressional impeachment proceedings, just as it does in a court of law, then it would very difficult to achieve the required threshold of evidence to remove the President over this matter.

Now, let’s get to the 800# gorilla in the room. Joe Biden, by his own admission, used his position as VPOTUS to have a prosecutor fired and an investigations stopped, which action benefited his son, Hunter. And, he specifically threatened to withhold a guaranteed loan, from the US, if this was not done. So, there is a much stronger case that Biden violated the law which the Democrats are claiming that Trump violated. And, from Biden’s remarks, it is possible that the then POTUS, Barack Obama may have had knowledge of Biden’s threat and condoned it. To establish that, would require additional investigation, notably on the Ukrainian end.

Of course, this also opens up the Biden family to investigation over Hunter’s Ukrainian connections as well as his China connections. And, as the Democrats are so fond of saying, we have to investigate these things to protect our democratic institutions.

This is what the continual attacks on Trump are all about. While the Dems would like to knock Trump out of the 2020 race, it has always been about protecting high ranking members of the Washington Establishment and especially those in the Obama Administration. It will be interesting to see exactly why Trump’s phone call was brought up, as it seems to actually open the door to investigating Obama era corruption. This may turn out to be simply another ill advised action taken in desperation.

The American experiment has reached a point of peak insanity with no logic, no facts, no respect, no decency, and no rules.

Sour grapists like Hillary and Romney are as dangerous as Barack.

Scary times.

The American experiment has reached a point of peak insanity with no logic, no facts, no respect, no decency, and no rules.

Sour grapists like Hillary and Romney are as dangerous as Barack.

Scary times.

Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998

    Thanks for the link.

    Trumps request is entirely in accordance with the treaty, including indicating AG Barr should be included.

Even with all the insanity/obstruction from democrats, President Donald J. Trump has managed to accomplish things I believed no American President ever would. My wish list. PDJT re-election in 2020. House purged of rinos prior to 2020, but retaken by Patriots who love America. Exposure of corruption that has taken place in politics for the last 50 years (GOP/democrat/Independent, does not matter). Courts purged of activist judges and replaced with those who follow the Constitution. I’ll stop there, because there is a lot of work to do and I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself. I really do appreciate Legalinsurrection and the audience here. It is place of sanity in what has felt like an insane world for a long time. This has been a place where we can discuss, disagree, agree, exchange and share.

Does this now mean that anyone who is running for office can no longer be investigated for any criminal acts? (/sarc)

    It actually depends upon the party affiliation –
    Democrat, no investigation of criminal acts
    Republican, investigation constantly about everything

Democrats always accuse Republicans of things of which they themselves are guilty.

Wow, this “Whistleblower” — aka, CIA leaker, is a really bad eavesdropper. It’s Biden who threatened a loss of foreign cash —$1 billion worth! So whatever Biden or any of the Dems about Trump, they’re probably in all cases projecting their own sins.