Forget my first source. I showed you the New York Times reported it too.
Manafort was knocked off the Trump campaign because of this.
Then you cannot credit the Russian propaganda that says “it wasn’t us, it was Ukraine”.
We’re in a high stakes poker game and I reveal to you that a certain individual at the table is stacking the deck when he deals the cards. Now, have I interfered in the game to the extent that the cheater has, or have I helped you? It’s true that both those events had an impact on the game, but are they the same?
I have also previously noted that a person under duress is not a reliable witness.
If someone tells you that Mr. Rogers had a habit of kicking puppies, and that person says this at the same time as having a set of wires coming out of his trouser legs and running to the offices of Universal Studios and he seems very fidgety and sweaty, I’d take his testimony with a grain of salt.
At the moment, in case you have missed the news, Ukraine is on the verge of being conquered by a foreign aggressor who is larger and more powerful than they. One of the few things helping to keep things from completely going to hell is staying in the good graces of Senor Donald Trump.
How about a person has $100 dollars, Russia robs them of $90, and Ukraine robs them of $10. Did they both commit robbery?
A mouse and an elephant are loose in your china shop. Which one do you worry about first?
If a Ukraine court finds Ukranian interference, it is by no means a “discredited theory”. Further investigation would be needed to determine the credibility of the theory. Which is exactly what Trump’s defence says he was trying to do.
What you think doesn’t matter. You aren’t the one who was impeached.
For example, if I say that Donald Trump said he grabbed women by the pussy, it is not a defense of Trump to say that you, Jim Peebles, never grabbed anyone by the pussy.
Likewise, the articles assert that Trump has promoted the idea that Ukraine AND NOT Russia was behind the election interference. Unless you are challenging that Trump has not: 1. Asserted that Ukraine interferes in the election, and 2. asserted that Russia did not interfere in the election; than your own theory of what countries interfered is wholly irrelevant.
Since you have no interest in why it happened, despite having it explained to you more than once, I have no more interest in trying to discuss this with you.
Where did Trump argue “NOT Russia”?
Wrong analogy.
I don’t think you’re going to get an answer to that question…It doesn’t fit the “narrative”.
Fuckin’ hell. :smack:
You’re kidding, right? You don’t know about the “Putin told me so”?
If you don’t know the first thing about this subject, why are you debating it?
I disagree. If you allege that only one entity interfered with an election, that is not a logical flaw. It may perhaps be a factual flaw that Trump could use in his defense but there is nothing illogical about it.
If Bill says that he didn’t steal from you because he has proof that Dave did it, then you could point out that it was possible that perhaps both Bill and Dave stole from you, but Bill could then come back with proof that it was only one entity. Nothing illogical about it.
This isn’t the debunked crowdstrike conspiracy theory that the Trump administration wanted to get Zelenski to report. This is reminiscent of Bush supporters pointing to a few deteriorated shells as proof that Sadam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction and so Bush was right.
The whole Ukrainian/DNC server conspiracy theory that he has harped on, referred to in the phone call, and continues to harp on is an attempt to refute that Russia hacked the DNC server. It then used the results to interfere in the 2016 election. That conspiracy theory, including specifics that Trump has repeatedly mentioned, including in the phone call, has been thoroughly debunked, and, apparently it is known (according to Fiona Hill, among others) to have been started by the Russians.
That is the discredited theory. That Ukraine, rather than Russia, interfered in the 2016 election in that particular way. I don’t know if it is a poorly worded sentence in the articles, or if the context makes it clear, since you haven’t provided context, or even the complete sentence.
Why, oh why, would Ukraine interfere with the 2016 election? They had no reason to doubt that either administration would be hostile toward it. There is no logic to it.
As an aside, I believe that Putin is still playing the Great Game, with the U.S. in the role of Great Britain.