Sure he would. (I desperately hope I’m wrong.)
If Donald passed a note to a bank teller demanding money, he’d present the note in his bank robbery trial as absolute proof of his innocence. Geez-o-petes, I thought the transcript would not be a smoking gun, else he wouldn’t have ordered it released. But it’s right there! Forget the whole Mueller Report, just proceed with impeachment on this one incident.
Moscow Mitch would give nuclear weapons to terrorists if that meant he could stay in power.
“Transcript” should read “call summary”. Specifically “memorandum of phone conversation”.
Any one else notice that only Trump’s remarks contain ellipses? (…)
Wonder how this memorandum will play in Ukraine? The President of Ukraine sounds like a simpering toady.
Thank you for your concern.
Could it not have been because those two examples were cases of Political Butt-Hurt?
Apple or lemon meringue?
I think any weakness in the Senate’s trial had less to do with Clinton’s popularity than the fact that half the Senate were egregious adulterers trying to Call the Kettle Black. Besides Newt “Served Divorce Papers on Dying Wife in Her Hospital Bed” Gingrich, there was Henry “Pass Off Illegitimate Daughter as a Youthful Indiscretion” Hyde and Bob “Paid for Mistress’ Abortion” Barr. Wotta swell bunch of guys.
Agreed. The Globe and Mail headline specifically calls it a “call summary”.
And the Guardian noted the ellipses, which occur particularly around the time Trump brings up Biden. I suspect this call summary has been “sharpied” a little bit.
If it was my leader, I’d be OK with that. It’s the only way to play Trump to your advantage. It’s an act.
So that’s it?
Seems the motivator here circling the wagons around their best 2020 chance - Biden - and doing a massive deflection.
I think there are parallels in today’s Senate Republicans.
Besides Moscow Mitch (yes please Mr. Russian oligarch, please send money to my state), there are, I suspect, many other Republicans with deep connections to shady Russians.
If someone with a good understanding of the legalities of executive privilege could chime in that would be helpful. My understanding of it is something like this. If congress subpoenas Trump or someone who wants to stay silent they can invoke executive privilege. But what about the case of someone who wants to testify. Could Trump force that individual to remain silent by claiming executive privilege?
Vlad has got to be laughing his ass off this morning. (Or this “evening” over there.)
So you’re OK with the President cutting aid to a country, and then calling the leader of that country and asking him to investigate family members of his opponent? And getting his personal lawyer involved as well? That’s just peachy keen for you at this point? No problem with that at all, eh? Nothing to see there.
“We’ll see what happens.” 
At this point I don’t think Biden is the best 2020 candidate. The whole tone of this Ukraine thing seems like it will play out more like Clinton with the emails rather than Obama and the birth certificate or Warren and her Native American heritage or lack thereof.
Not groking the arithmetic behind the idea that impeachment is guaranteed to put Trump back in office.
Yes, this action will motivate turnout from his supporters, but his supporters were never a question. I mean, they are slaves to him at this point. It’s Dem turnout that is going to matter more in this election. An impeachment inquiry has now given disenchanted liberals reason to see Democrats as responsible vertebrates once again. As more and more shit comes out about this thing, Dems will only get more fired up about Trump. Energy that might otherwise be spent on in-party fighting will be spent on the real opponent.
But what about independents and undecideds? I don’t see how impeachment would make these idiots more likely to vote for Trump. If Trump hasn’t already done enough to make them get off the fence, this mean they are basically living in an information vacuum. “Impeachment” is a word that carries stigma, makes us think of Nixon and scandal and high crimes. Low-information voters might not know the details behind the inquiry, but once they start associating Trump with the word impeachment, it will be harder for them to see him as a defensible choice. The 3rd party nobody will look like the more attractive vote, because if history eventually pulls back the curtain and reveals that Trump was truly villainous, Independents are the last group who will want to claim supporting him. Distancing oneself from bad politicians is the ethos of Independents.
Double
Well, considering most of what you write here is vox/buzzfeed style “journalism” and speculation, based on absolutely zero evidence whatsoever, yeah, all is well.
What’s absolutely evident from the transcript is that there was no quid pro quo, and that means no smoking gun, like was overbearingly pushed by the Dems and the basis of their whole “inquiry”.
So at best the left got their week long news cycle, and egg in their face, and most people still won’t support impeachment.
At worst (or best for me) they keep pushing it and inadvertently reveal some nasty Biden dirt, pushing the lefts best chance out the window.
So, yeah.
Who are you gonna believe, me? Or your own lying eyes.
There doesn’t need to be a quid pro quo in order for it to be an egregious abuse of power to ask foreign countries as the President of the United States to investigate your political rivals.
But, also, there was an obvious quid pro quo. I mean, RTFMemCon.