[Khorza]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lol guy comes here in and explains that he is coming up with some damning evidence that has been discussed already 40 times in both threads. Seems there isn't only one side with deaf ears.

I never claimed it was damning evidence, everyone had access to the transcript that the white house released. That's what's so insane about this, everyone knows that the president did this shit yet they still twist themselves into knots in an attempt to defend him.

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They are saying that Trump held aid, had a conversation then released it prior to any investigation taking place.

Okay, the problem with this sentence is that you took a bunch of very important details and described that part as, "had a conversation."

You know as well as I do that the details of that conversation are the problem here. You're very obviously glossing over that part and throwing your hands up in the air like, "they just had a conversation, what's the big deal?"

Well, the big deal is that during that conversation the president of the United States asked a foreign government to meddle in an upcoming election.

That fact alone is damning, and no one is even disputing it because it's a fact. The president of the United States should be a defender of democracy, not attempting to usurp it.

Then, when you consider the context of this request it gets even worse. The president is mysteriously withholding preapproved aid to a foreign ally. This particular conversation was meant to discuss what's going on with that aid. The president then asks a foreign government to investigate his political rival. And then after this request, the aid is released.

This is pretty cut and dry my dude.

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Therefore, no quid pro pro. In other words, "Start the investigation first, then I'll release aid."

Yeah but, you know what you're doing here man. You're not fooling anyone. You're ignoring all of the relevant information and bringing up all of the irrelevant information. It's the same tactic that every Republican politician and pundit is using right now; it's just complete smoke and mirrors.

You don't have to declare, "THIS IS QUID PRO QUO" for it to be quid pro quo. If it walks like a duck, etc.

The chronology of the events is completely irrelevant too, but you know that. It doesn't matter when Trump released the aid. All that matters if that he made a request for Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, and Zelensky accepted that request. Nothing else has to be said, but it's clearly understood that if Zelensky doesn't meet Trump's expectations then further aid could be at risk.

You don't have to read between the lines to figure this whole scheme out, but you at least have to open your eyes to look at the words on the page.

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Flip the roles then ask yourself the same questions.

Nothing that I've said has been partisan. I have my own gripes with the Democrats. If the president of the United States is soliciting foreign governments to undermine the integrity of our election system, I want them removed from office regardless of their party affiliation. It's that simple.

This isn't the NFL. Stop making it about your team vs. everyone else's team. The man is a shit president, better luck next time. I voted for Obama and he turned out to be pretty lousy too. Just not quite this bad.