(10-29-2019, 02:16 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 01:07 PM)Gabe Wrote: See how easy that was? And believe it or not, I really did ask because I wanted to know if you honestly considered Vindman as a never-trumper or resistance operative. I asked because the left seems to tout him as a key witness. In reaction, the right seems to be discrediting him and his loyalty to his country. That isn't a side-step. 

Perhaps that's just me wanting to hear more from everyone involved. I believe it's understandable to want transparency in an impeachment - to hear questions and answers about this entire thing in an open-to-the-public setting, especially considering that we only have leaked opening statements and yes, a TELCON memorandum (based on notes of NSC and Situation Room staff) of the call. If it's truly pearl clutching as you believe, then I'd like to see/hear it firsthand. I said it before, in response to you directly: I look at any impeachment as ultimately a lose-lose situation. 

Furthermore, I'd argue that the investigation, which is what this or any impeachment is at its core, is about more than just the call - hence the continued testimony during the initial stages - an attempt to discover evidence, if it exists, to support reasonable suspicion. This means interviews/testimonies/etc. surrounding the entire Ukraine situation, not just the call. 

At the end of the day, the house will likely vote to impeach, the senate will likely vote not to remove.

Here is the quote I found:

Quote:“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” Colonel Vindman said in his statement. “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”

I read that as a political concern, rather than an claim of wrongdoing.

The text of the call that was released (and it was detailed enough that I don't expect the actual call to have been different in spite of your skepticism) never demanded (or even asked for) Ukraine to investigate Biden, those words are just a lie being propagated by those opposed to Trump. What was requested was to contact Barr with any information. Note also that, although there was no follow through on the request, Ukraine still received their requested military aid. At most you could claim it was an empty threat, but Ukraine did not take it as a threat, and Trump claims he didn't intend it as a threat. If both parties in the conversation both agree to that then the investigation is a meaningless waste of time.

If what a president might ask for is wrong because requesting foreign information about a possible crime is off limits if the criminal is related to a political opponent, that amounts to a "get out of jail free" card for criminals. Of course most of the prominent Dems are above the law anyway.

This is about more than a phone call.  The abuse of power could have taken place in any number of communication channels.
It could have been indirect.  If any US official testifies, "the president told us to say X to Ukraine," that's the same as the President himself saying it on the phone for the purpose of this conversation.
The question is, was X something in our national interest, or was it only in private or partisan interest?  If the latter, that is naked abuse of power that must be remedied by removal from office.  However, that question is not easy to answer.

---