I see these points as suggestive of the possibility that Trump wasn’t talking about the $391M. Money is the language Trump knows best, and he is not known for subtlety. We have seen what Trump will say in public. Is it that far a stretch to suggest that Trump would have been much more clear in this case, on a private call? I am always wary of trying to read minds of politicians, unlike every Tom, Dick, and Harry pundit on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the like. So I am not saying I think Trump definitely was not talking about the cash. Maybe he was, but I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion. But in either case, it is using his office for personal gain, and that is really the issue for me.
He could have even been a bit subtle, and said, “I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time, and quite frankly, money…”
Something like this, for instance. That would clearly get his message across, and clearly be about the dough.
Maybe this is why he thought the call was “perfect” – because he so subtly got his demands across without saying the word “money.” Such a clever devil, he.
I think they were unaware it was being withheld at the time of the call:
But a broader point you touch on is, I think, accurate: Ukraine (just like most countries, perhaps even more than most countries) has a lot of reasons to want to stay in the good graces of the military and economic superpower that is the USA. Regardless of the status / knowledge of the specific $391M aid package, Ukraine was in fairly dire straights and rather desperate for assistance from Washington on a number of fronts.
Okay, then we are agreed that he was withholding funds in exchange for a favor. We just don’t agree whether or not that is something that is illegal?
Not sure what you are trying to get at here. Your cite even says that they knew that they didn’t have the money and were desperately scrambling to figure out why. Now, they didn’t know why they had not yet received the money that they had been told that they would be receiving, I’ll agree. Which is why I find Trump’s phone call even more damning. If someone agrees to pay you money for something, and the time for that money to have been paid comes and goes, and your bank account is still empty, then they call you up and ask you for a favor, would you think that that favor would have anything to do with that money that you have been expecting?
They may not have known why, but they certainly knew it was.
IMHO, the reason for the phone call was to give them the reason why.
And if the United States wants to take advantage of their desperate situation to get some particular concession or favors out of them, great(-ish. I don’t think that it’s entirely ethical, but if its open and above board, then it’s not more or less underhanded then most international diplomacy.) But if an individual uses the power of his office to get personal concessions and favors, then that is open abuse of power, and exactly the sort of things that the founders were thinking when they penned the words “High Crimes”.
No, we agree that he was withholding funds. We agree that it was happening at a time that coincided with him asking for a favor. But we do NOT agree that “he was withholding funds in exchange for a favor.” (emphasis mine). I hope that’s clear.
My cite says “he believed $391 million worth of military aid was already on its way to Kiev”. It’s essentially the difference between believing that “the check is in the mail” and being told “I’m not going to pay you”.
Your conclusion is clear. Your rationale, not so much.
So, do you really believe that when people say “the check is in the mail”, that the check is actually in the mail?
Your cite also says, ““Yes, of course we were worried, because actually we didn’t find any plausible reason” for the aid to be delayed”. Zelensky was “under the impression” that the aid was on its way, but he was also very aware that it had not yet arrived.
If there is no plausible reason for the aid to be delayed, and yet, the aid is not in your bank account, when the person responsible for administering that aid calls up and asks for a favor, would you think that that favor that they are asking for would have anything to do with the aid that you can find no plausible reason to be delayed?
That’ll earn you a warning, running coach. You should know better than such.
EVERYONE: One more issue in this thread and it’s closed and I won’t let you open another one for several days. If you can’t control yourself, take ti to the Pit.