Let's see how you'd feel if this happened to you. Now you know why Trump is so mad at the Democrat clowns.

I mean I guess this would be applicable if:

-Your hypothetical protagonist was also under other investigations for separate unrelated crimes involving money laundering, campaign finance violation, and sexual assault.

-The evidence in said investigations were not rumors, but detailed testimonies from multiple eyewitness accounts.

-He is not exonerated by the DNA test.

Other than that, and probably a few other glaringly obvious differences, I’d say this checks out.

Very elegant explanation, but the point of my story was not the technical merits of my example compared to the impeachment circus. Democrats were talking impeachment only a month after Trump took office! So is this justice? Or a liberal self-fulfilling prophesy? Democrats do not want Trump in the Oval Office and any crime, real or imagined, will be dragged into the spotlight to remove him until the day he leaves politics. If he is not impeached, do you honestly think he will not be accused of a new crime 24hrs later? I am fatigued by the 24/7 Hate Trump movement. They also do not attack Trump daily to prove they despise him, we already know that. So what is the end goal?

I don't believe for a moment Trump has lived a life of cardinal virtue and I really have no interest in the man personally. Has he swindled people? Ever told a lie? Touched a woman's breast without permission? Gotten drunk? Used his influence to enrich himself? Used drugs? Failed to pay a water bill? We all have our opinions, but my opinion is we would be shocked to learn about the personal lives of powerful men. Right Mr Epstein?

However, Democrats have lost all objectivity and credibility. A Democrat screaming about Trump being a criminal is no different than films of Nazis protesting Jewish businesses in 1930s Berlin. The fanatical ideology, the hateful motives, the non-stop mud slinging...that bothers me. All of this time and effort over an old rich guy who might have a fatal heart attack tomorrow....that is the real warning flag here. I endured Obama, Clinton, and Carter. I can survive Trump. So can you. But if you are a Republican and you see this circus playing out, realize the end goal.

And what is the goal? One party in power. Democrats do not want another voice, a different opinion, or competing ideas...no, no, and no. They want a permanent echo chamber. Never have I seen the will of the voters so brazenly disregarded as in the last few years. Not being a Democrat, a Socialist, a Clinton, or a Liberal is NOT A CRIME folks! But apparently millions of people want that to change. Now Democrats showed their cards too early with Trump and its easy to pick on low hanging fruit like AOC, but consider the future. You can bet your last dollar the next time a "politically unacceptable" president is voted into office, the exact same thing will happen. People would lose their minds if a Poll Tax was proposed in Congress. But a Poll Undo button is fine apparently?

If you're worried about One party in power, maybe don't support a Party that is for the expansion of libel laws, nor disregard the majority of the popular vote three times when they make up rules concerning the appointment of Supreme Court nominees. It is not criminal to be a Conservative. As far as I know, I've been met with little resistance in my conservative values. What I have met is a group of people proud to support a lazy, whiney, uneducated, unskilled businessman because he makes he's the best at "trolling the liberals" Maybe Trump would receive less flack from the left if he wasn't so damn antagonistic toward them. You act like he didn't start this. And you're surprised that someone else is willing to finish it. He talks of impeachment like a dare, and then cries foul when they call his bluff to impeach him. He literally called Zelensky within twenty-four hours of the Mueller testimony and he thought he was safe to continue his collusion with other foreign powers. Not understanding that he got off on a technicality. Wasn't President when he committed the crime, so can't be impeached. Was elected despite the crime, so can't be indicted. And what does he do when he thinks he is safe? Go forth with his plan to exploit his Presidential powers to get a foreign power to help investigate a political rival.

The testimonies are what is called hearsay, where they talked about things they hear second and third hand and gave assumptions rather than facts also known as rumors.

This actually almost works...

Some changes tho.

The DNA evidence doesn’t exonerate you.

And you’re refusing to allow all your close relatives to testify.

Then it totally works.

DNA would be the transcript, and it exonerates him.

No, it doesn't. It actually implicated him which was why the whistleblower testimony no longer necessary since the transcript matched what the complaint was originally about.

Every single person who gave testimony said quid pro quo was their opinion, and not in the call.

The transcript on it's own shows a quid pro quo. The testimony reinforced that conclusion by conducting a timeline of events that further implicate the President in abusing his power to withhold aid to a foreign power in order to enlist their help to discredit a domestic political rival.

That might have been mentioned in the hearings, but it wasn't.

I've read the transcript, and it isn't in there.

It was.

it is.

Cool story bro, what page?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

Midway through page 2, second message by Trump, he establishes that the US does more to help Ukraine than Germany. More than any of the other European countries.

Zelensky's response is to agree and continue to praise the President for his help. Reinforcing the fact that the Ukraine needs continued support with the US.

Page 3, Trump "moves on him like a b**ch" and asks Zelenksy to "do him a favor, though." First trying to see if the Ukraine company crowdstrike has the DNC server. Then insisting Zelensky cooperate in Giuliani and Barr's investigation into Biden.

Not Burisma, not the Prosecutor or why he was removed, but Biden and his son specifically.

The testimonies further expanding that aid from Ukraine had been withheld prior to the phone call.

July 3rd, Lt. Vindman, a national security official working at the White House, becomes aware that the military aid has been held up. He testified that he received a notice from the State Department. “That’s when I was concretely made aware of the fact there was a hold placed,” he said in testimony to lawmakers.

July 11th, a secure call with national security officials, a staff member of the White House Office of Management and Budget announces there’s a freeze on Ukraine aid until further notice, based on a presidential order to the budget office.

July 25th, Trump's phone call with Zelensky.

By August Ukraine becomes aware of the withheld aid, but they may have known up to a week prior if not the day of the phone call with Trump.

August 12th, the Whistleblower complaint is filed on the details concerning the phone call and the withheld aid.

September 9th, House investigations begin into Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and possibly others, to see if they tried to pressure the Ukrainian government to help the president’s reelection campaign by digging up dirt on a political rival.

September 11th, the aid is released!

September 13th, an interview on CNN with Zelensky in which he would make a public statement on the investigations that Trump was pushing for is cancelled.

I appreciate the effort you’ve put into this, and if it’s 90-95% accurate then it’s 90-95% better than the Republicans in this thread are managing

Bravo Strangelove for this cogent timeline of events 👏👏

Can't take all the credit. I've been double-checking this source which appears accurate.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/curious-release-military-aid-ukraine-n1082256

I've spent two weeks verifying this timeline and have been trying to find out when exactly Ukraine became aware of the withdrawn aid but I can't get anything conclusive. The above timeline is only a simplification and omissions have been made to paint a clearer picture.

Someone may feel free to start a new comment thread to challenge this source or my simplification of the timeline if there are any relevant omissions, inaccuracies, or discrepancies.

Uh-huh... so the transcript of the call doesn't show aid was being withheld in exchange for an investigation (and Biden's words, while ultimately found to be exaggerated, did warrant at least a good look), BOTH participants in the call deny aid was being withheld in exchange for the investigation, and the "other participant" (President Zelensky) has revealed that he didn't hear about the withholding of aid 'til later - and not in connection in any way with the Bidens.
Yep, a quid pro quo.

You forgot the part where Trump stresses how the US was doing more than any other country. So, yes, while aid was not established to be on hold during the call, Zelensky absolutely knew he had no choice but to stay on Trump’s good side and cooperate with all of Trump’s demands because Ukraine depends on that support.

Definitely a quid pro quo.

A quid pro quo is not necessary to be an abuse of power by the president. The whole notion of a QPQ being the only reason for guilt is preposterous. The President asked anothere head of state to do HIM a favor by looking into a political opponent (who also happens to be a private citizen.) Not for security reasons. For personal/political reasons. Regardless of QPQ. That act happened. That is HUGE abuse of power. That is the reason for impeachment.

Christ, Clinton was impeached for lying about a bl***ob. How the F*CK is that high crime? Imagine Obama did what Trump did. Imagine the next Democrat president does this. Setting this precedent of acceptability is a VERY slippery slope.

I highly doubt you are as sorry as you claim.

1. The President was not investigating election interference in the 2016 general election. He was looking for the DNC server and dirt on Biden.

2. Whether or not Ukraine interfered with the US election is irrelevant. Just as it is irrelevant that Russia interfered in the US election. The US election is not what is at stake here. It is willful collusion with foreign powers by our politicians to affect our elections. Arguing that Hillary needs her day in court does not absolve Trump of his day in court nor the crimes for which he is accused.

3. I'm afraid it is relevant. It is fine for a President to dig up dirt on his rival. It also find for a President to investigate foreign corruption. It is not fine, however, to do one thing under the guise of the other. Neither running for office, nor holding it, is a shield for investigation.

4. He does have absolute right to withhold aid to a foreign nation, but not for his personal benefit.

Super fun, what does zelinski get in return?

Aid was withheld from Ukraine, seemingly under the condition that Zelensky participate in Trump's investigations. Once the White House became aware of the Whistleblower complaint and the House investigations, aid was immediately released.

While you might argue that the aid was not conditioned for Zelensky's participation, it appears that something was. That condition was suddenly met days after House committee investigations began despite no changes to foreign policy nor any communication with Ukraine about why aid had been stopped in the first place. A case can be constructed from the provided evidence, and the secondhand testimonies, that releasing aid was condition in exchange for participation into investigating Biden. Which would mean the phone call not only implicates but incriminates the President in attempted bribery.

And you may try to argue that because the aid was released and Zelensky himself maintains "no conditions were made," that there is no evidence of wrongdoing. However, Zelenksy would not benefit at all from openly contradicting Trump while he is still President of the US and has the power withdraw that aid again.

Interestingly enough, I cannot confirm if Ukraine is moving forward with the investigations into Burisma or Hunter Biden. It appears they have said they are, but no formal investigation has been put in place. Very interesting.

Based on the transcript, Trump's public statements, and the timeline, this should still all be enough to impeach the President of the United States.

Rest assure, however, Trump will not be removed from office, nor impeached.

Amazing counterargument, padre. As usual, you sure prrrrroovd your case.

Some of the aid still hasn't been released ensuring that Zelensky's lips remain tightly puckered against Trump's ass-cheeks until further notice.

You call it "explained in a different way". I call it "explained in not at all the right way".

Ha. No.

Aw, you copy pasted. Too bad you have nothing meaningful to contribute but a collage of your hero.

Too bad you never have anything meaningful to contribute to Imgflip whatsoever.

Kinda like the Democrats breaking every conceivable law just to try and oust a duly elected man from office. Which is why they keep failing miserably. But you keep on supporting a man who actually broke the law and vote for him in November. Cause Trump bad and stuff.

What laws have they broken?

Jaywalking one time back in '82.

A zero amount of laws.

Probably something like this

It is not against the law to paraphrase the President. You could argue the testimony was inaccurate but not fraudulent.

Very well. I'll defend Schiffhead.

"It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates."

He admits it's a paraphrase.

""We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though.""

So far, so good. This is pretty accurate.

""And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that.""

Within context, only 1/4th correct. And I'll go even further to say that Schiff was an idiot to say anything other then, "I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand." This is where he completely derails the summary of the transcript to instead inject his own perspective of the President's mindset.

The DNC Server being in Ukraine is a conspiracy theory. Is it making up dirt? Absolutely.

""I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him. Trust me.""

This is essentially what Trump did say.
"He's got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him." This is an exaggeration. He is the head of the DOJ, so Schiff's not wrong.
"You're going to love him. Trust me." Things Trump has said, just not in this phone call.

"You know what I’m asking. And so I’m only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked."

This is the critical moment of what you call "Fraud", what Republicans call "Perjury", what the President calls "Treason." It is certainly inaccurate and definitely earns Schiff bipartisan scorn. To miscategorize it and dismiss Adam Schiff's entire summary as "complete fiction" is just as fraudulent and dishonest as claiming a different perspective is why this nation is so bitterly divided.

You call it "similar circumstances". I call it "not at all even vaguely similar circumstances".

Of course you don't because you hate Trump and don't really understand the law.

You call it "understand the law". I call it "dismiss the parts of the law that don't suit my perspective".

You sure you wanna admit to that?

That's just unnecessary

that is just how the system works