(11-13-2019, 06:21 PM)jj82284 Wrote:

(11-13-2019, 06:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: I thought Schiff and Jordan both made their cases pretty well.  Nunes was pretty ineffective.
I wonder if the Democrats can show that Ukraine knew aid was being withheld prior to the July 25th call.  I think the Democrats' accusations become less serious, but still very serious, if Ukraine did not know.  It would show Trump's people to be corrupt but incompetent, which I suppose is less serious than corrupt and competent.
For their part, Republicans could show that Trump was pursuing "corruption in general" in Ukraine as they allege.  The transcript that we have, which is not complete, only mentions crowdstrike and Burisma.  And it only mentions Burisma in connection with Biden - not in general.  If they can show that Trump's interests were actually broad, they could justify that more easily as being "national interest".  But I doubt they have the evidence for that.  We would have seen it by now.

There u go again...

 Bill Taylor, as the ambassador to the Ukraine, had DIRECT ACCESS to the Ukrainian president including three face to face meetings during the 55 day hold on the aid.  Not ONE TIME did the president mention any linkage or pressure in correlation to aid, investigations or anything of the sort.  

Mr Taylor had three meetings with the Ukrainian president but zero with the US president. 
the plausible story is that the US president had other people he was relying on to convey his corrupt message. Two separate channels of communication. within the story it makes sense that Mr Taylor would only be able to understand the President's true motive through secondhand information. This doesn't mean that the story is true, but it does mean that the lack of firsthand information is not a plot hole as you suggest it is.

---