Offical Impeachment Thread

[jc456]

I'm sure it doesn't matter to you if a president bribes a foreign power with military aid in order to discredit his political opposition. However, most people would consider that misuse of executive power, bribery, and a violation of his oath of office.

Not at all. We're all behind you. Just give us empirical evidence that Trump did such a thing, because so far, not one of you has been able to do it yet.

You may hear that next week as more witnesses closer to Trump start testifying.

Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:

First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.

First, jackass, why would the President of the Ukraine admit he accepted a bribe? Second, why would he piss off Trump when Trump controlled the funding.

Using funds to try to bribe a foreign official is illegal

Biden was leading in the polls. Joe Biden was the centrist. He was kicking Trumps ass in e ery poll.

Nice Try but Trump is toast.

Trump didn't bribe anybody and you have no facts to backup your claim. We heard the testimony, we have the phone call transcript. Nowhere did Trump ever state US aid would be contingent on any of his requests. Tell me, what did Biden brag about? He bragged that he told Ukrainian officials that if they didn't fire the prosecutor, they wouldn't be getting any US funds. If you want to use the word bribery, that's where it rightfully belongs. Biden threatened funds, and he got what he wanted out of it. Trump got nothing.

Malicious

 

[jc456]

Not at all. We're all behind you. Just give us empirical evidence that Trump did such a thing, because so far, not one of you has been able to do it yet.

You may hear that next week as more witnesses closer to Trump start testifying.

Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:

First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.

You wish it was over. This week, for your viewing pleasure, we have:

Tuesday -
Jennifer Williams, aide to Mike Pence
Lt Col Alexander Vindman, NSC aide
Kurt Volker, former US special envoy to Ukraine
Tim Morrison, NSC aide

Wednesday -
Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the European Union
Laura Cooper, Deputy Asst Secy of Defence
David Hale, Under Secy of State for Political Affairs

Thursday -
Fiona Hill, Former White House Russia Expert

I am especially interested in the testimony of Vindman and Sondland.

I bought an extra large bag of impeachment blend popcorn. I can't wait.

Hope you enjoy yourself as much as we will.......but I doubt it.

Guaranteed I will enjoy it more than you. I don't have to worry about defending the jackass.

Is it Tuesday yet?

Neither do we. You can’t prove he did anything

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Of course, because we all know that this isn't a witch hunt.

well i know that if it were & president tinkles had the evidence to show it was, he sure as hell would do EVERYTHING he could to show the witch hunters how wrong they were. he would hold a televised 'event' with spotlights, a red carpet, & probably make it a pay per view so he could make $$$ off it.

but none of that is gonna happen. & we both know why.

Then maybe we can make a trade: Ask the President for those witnesses, and in return, we get to question the whistleblower and the person he or she got their information from; the person that was listening on the phone.

Sound like a good deal to you???

Sounds more like the Kavanaugh scam that never was. How about burden of proof goes on the prosecution, and you don’t have to do or say anything. Like in real criminal law? It’s good enough for everything else. Shit, the alleged victim said he wasn’t a victim, and that’s not good enough. WTF?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just trying to demonstrate to these hypocrites that they are hypocrites.

They want Trump to give them anything and everything for them to try and prove guilt, yet they defend Schiff Face when he doesn't do the same for his defense. Their claim is Trump is trying to hide something, while it is they who are hiding things by not bringing all their evidence forward. So far, they brought nothing.

Schiff Face kept secret meetings taking place in the basement for weeks, and carefully choosing the so-called witnesses that he though made his best case. Now we see his best witnesses are nothing but he said/ she said people, and nothing of substance.

I have news, overhearing a conversation is not hearsay. Witnesses matter.

Trump is toast.

Who are you trying to convince? Overhearing is definitely hearsay, and so far nobody has their story straight. [emoji1]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Apparently winning the election as a Republican President is an impeachable offense. Good luck losers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That ignores Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush the Lesser. None of them were impeached.

Getting an intern blow job is also an impeachable offense, don't forget that. I don't imagine that will be an issue for Trump because he has to pay for sex and interns don't get paid enough for that horror.

The blowjob was not an impeachable offense. Are you so much of a dumbass that you cannot read the Articles of Impeachment for Bubba Clinton?

He lied under oath.

About an intern blow job.

He lied, proven. Why does it matter about what?

Oh Jesus fucking Christ! Will you people please get on topic or just shut the fuck up. Do you even understand the difference between Clinton's actions and Trump's in relation to national security, the integrity of the constitution and the founders intent regarding impeachment? I don't think so.

Where the impeachment case stands as Democrats prepare to bring a barrage of new witnesses

Yes. There’s nothing there again Don.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OKTexas]

Why does it matter?

I'm sure it doesn't matter to you if a president bribes a foreign power with military aid in order to discredit his political opposition. However, most people would consider that misuse of executive power, bribery, and a violation of his oath of office.

Not at all. We're all behind you. Just give us empirical evidence that Trump did such a thing, because so far, not one of you has been able to do it yet.

You may hear that next week as more witnesses closer to Trump start testifying.

Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:

First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.

First, jackass, why would the President of the Ukraine admit he accepted a bribe? Second, why would he piss off Trump when Trump controlled the funding.

Using funds to try to bribe a foreign official is illegal

Biden was leading in the polls. Joe Biden was the centrist. He was kicking Trumps ass in e ery poll.

Nice Try but Trump is toast.

Biden is a two time loser, 70 something white guy, with lifelong chronic foot in mouth disease. He never had a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination. And I'm not even going to mention how creepy he is around women and girls. The commiecrat base is no where near the center.

.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not at all. We're all behind you. Just give us empirical evidence that Trump did such a thing, because so far, not one of you has been able to do it yet.

You may hear that next week as more witnesses closer to Trump start testifying.

Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:

First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.

You wish it was over. This week, for your viewing pleasure, we have:

Tuesday -
Jennifer Williams, aide to Mike Pence
Lt Col Alexander Vindman, NSC aide
Kurt Volker, former US special envoy to Ukraine
Tim Morrison, NSC aide

Wednesday -
Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the European Union
Laura Cooper, Deputy Asst Secy of Defence
David Hale, Under Secy of State for Political Affairs

Thursday -
Fiona Hill, Former White House Russia Expert

I am especially interested in the testimony of Vindman and Sondland.

I bought an extra large bag of impeachment blend popcorn. I can't wait.

Hope you enjoy yourself as much as we will.......but I doubt it.

Guaranteed I will enjoy it more than you. I don't have to worry about defending the jackass.

Is it Tuesday yet?

Well, let me fill you in on something: It's easy to defend against lies.

 

[jc456]

You may hear that next week as more witnesses closer to Trump start testifying.

Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:

First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.

You wish it was over. This week, for your viewing pleasure, we have:

Tuesday -
Jennifer Williams, aide to Mike Pence
Lt Col Alexander Vindman, NSC aide
Kurt Volker, former US special envoy to Ukraine
Tim Morrison, NSC aide

Wednesday -
Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the European Union
Laura Cooper, Deputy Asst Secy of Defence
David Hale, Under Secy of State for Political Affairs

Thursday -
Fiona Hill, Former White House Russia Expert

I am especially interested in the testimony of Vindman and Sondland.

I bought an extra large bag of impeachment blend popcorn. I can't wait.

Hope you enjoy yourself as much as we will.......but I doubt it.

Guaranteed I will enjoy it more than you. I don't have to worry about defending the jackass.

Is it Tuesday yet?

Well, let me fill you in on something: It's easy to defend against lies.

Demolosers never have facts

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why does it matter?

I'm sure it doesn't matter to you if a president bribes a foreign power with military aid in order to discredit his political opposition. However, most people would consider that misuse of executive power, bribery, and a violation of his oath of office.

Not at all. We're all behind you. Just give us empirical evidence that Trump did such a thing, because so far, not one of you has been able to do it yet.

You may hear that next week as more witnesses closer to Trump start testifying.

Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:

First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.

You wish it was over. This week, for your viewing pleasure, we have:

Tuesday -
Jennifer Williams, aide to Mike Pence
Lt Col Alexander Vindman, NSC aide
Kurt Volker, former US special envoy to Ukraine
Tim Morrison, NSC aide

Wednesday -
Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the European Union
Laura Cooper, Deputy Asst Secy of Defence
David Hale, Under Secy of State for Political Affairs

Thursday -
Fiona Hill, Former White House Russia Expert

I am especially interested in the testimony of Vindman and Sondland.

I bought an extra large bag of impeachment blend popcorn. I can't wait.

Vindman and Sondland have already testified. Are you going to enjoy that nothingburger just like the last one, dumbass?

 

[Ame®icano]

Looks like I got under someone's skin.

Your stupidity, not arguments, gets under everyone's skin.

 

[Ame®icano]

[
Dumbfuck, the public hearings began just 3 days ago and there have been only two pollsters out with approval ratings since then. Rasmussen, which has Trump increasing to 50%; And Reuters, which has him at 40%, same as the last time they released a poll.

So yeah, as I said, you're basing your observations on one poll historically favorable to Trump. That's not as revealing as you fool yourself into believing.

As far as comparing Gallup's poll numbers on Obama with all polls on Trump, that's very dishonest of you. A valid comparison would be all polls for both or just Gallup for both. The reason you don't want to compare both is because:

Approval / disapproval
Obama ... 43% / 48%
Trump .... 41% / 57%

Says the shitstain who claim earlier that polls were right, but pollsters were wrong.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

well i know that if it were & president tinkles had the evidence to show it was, he sure as hell would do EVERYTHING he could to show the witch hunters how wrong they were. he would hold a televised 'event' with spotlights, a red carpet, & probably make it a pay per view so he could make $$$ off it.

but none of that is gonna happen. & we both know why.

Then maybe we can make a trade: Ask the President for those witnesses, and in return, we get to question the whistleblower and the person he or she got their information from; the person that was listening on the phone.

Sound like a good deal to you???

Sounds more like the Kavanaugh scam that never was. How about burden of proof goes on the prosecution, and you don’t have to do or say anything. Like in real criminal law? It’s good enough for everything else. Shit, the alleged victim said he wasn’t a victim, and that’s not good enough. WTF?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just trying to demonstrate to these hypocrites that they are hypocrites.

They want Trump to give them anything and everything for them to try and prove guilt, yet they defend Schiff Face when he doesn't do the same for his defense. Their claim is Trump is trying to hide something, while it is they who are hiding things by not bringing all their evidence forward. So far, they brought nothing.

Schiff Face kept secret meetings taking place in the basement for weeks, and carefully choosing the so-called witnesses that he though made his best case. Now we see his best witnesses are nothing but he said/ she said people, and nothing of substance.

I have news, overhearing a conversation is not hearsay. Witnesses matter.

Trump is toast.

Overhearing is only one side.

The witness against Kavanaugh was better than the ones they have now. At least they poured her out of her bottle for a while. We all saw how that worked out. Your team is a joke. You will be Don’s bitch for years to come. [emoji1]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotYourBody]

I'm sure it doesn't matter to you if a president bribes a foreign power with military aid in order to discredit his political opposition. However, most people would consider that misuse of executive power, bribery, and a violation of his oath of office.

Not at all. We're all behind you. Just give us empirical evidence that Trump did such a thing, because so far, not one of you has been able to do it yet.

You may hear that next week as more witnesses closer to Trump start testifying.

Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:

First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.

You wish it was over. This week, for your viewing pleasure, we have:

Tuesday -
Jennifer Williams, aide to Mike Pence
Lt Col Alexander Vindman, NSC aide
Kurt Volker, former US special envoy to Ukraine
Tim Morrison, NSC aide

Wednesday -
Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the European Union
Laura Cooper, Deputy Asst Secy of Defence
David Hale, Under Secy of State for Political Affairs

Thursday -
Fiona Hill, Former White House Russia Expert

I am especially interested in the testimony of Vindman and Sondland.

I bought an extra large bag of impeachment blend popcorn. I can't wait.

Vindman and Sondland have already testified. Are you going to enjoy that nothingburger just like the last one, dumbass?

I'm ready to see them testify in public. I will enjoy it a lot, thank you.

 

[Ame®icano]

Because he is covering up his real reason for getting her out of office. Next week, it comes very clear. It's not going to be a good month for Rump.

He doesn't need a reason to get her out of office. He can fire her for being Barry's holdover, or no reason at all.

There were no smears. It's just made up to give her something to complain about.

 

[The Purge]

Morrison [Former NSC] Says Transcript Is Accurate, Nothing Illegal In Trump Call to Zelensky

It's looking like the Democrats' narrative of President Trump's handling of foreign aid to Ukraine is the exact opposite of what actually happened.

Former National Security Council official Tim Morrison was deposed in a closed-door session in the House on Saturday. Morrison listened in on Trump's July 25 phone call to Ukraine President Zelenksy from the White House Situation Room.

"I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed," Morrisson told lawmakers.

Democrats made a big deal about Morrisson's "concern" over the transcript of the call being leaked. But Morrisson said his concerns about the transcript being leaked revolved around the impact the transcript might have on support for foreign aid to Ukraine, as well as how the transcript would play out in Washington's polarized political climate. So Morrison predicted the Democrats would make a nothingburger out of it.

Trump released the memcon of his July 25 phone call back in September. "To the best of my recollection," Morrison told lawmakers, "the Memcon accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call."

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...

 

[Lastamender]

Not at all. We're all behind you. Just give us empirical evidence that Trump did such a thing, because so far, not one of you has been able to do it yet.

You may hear that next week as more witnesses closer to Trump start testifying.

Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:

First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.

You wish it was over. This week, for your viewing pleasure, we have:

Tuesday -
Jennifer Williams, aide to Mike Pence
Lt Col Alexander Vindman, NSC aide
Kurt Volker, former US special envoy to Ukraine
Tim Morrison, NSC aide

Wednesday -
Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the European Union
Laura Cooper, Deputy Asst Secy of Defence
David Hale, Under Secy of State for Political Affairs

Thursday -
Fiona Hill, Former White House Russia Expert

I am especially interested in the testimony of Vindman and Sondland.

I bought an extra large bag of impeachment blend popcorn. I can't wait.

Hope you enjoy yourself as much as we will.......but I doubt it.

Guaranteed I will enjoy it more than you. I don't have to worry about defending the jackass.

Is it Tuesday yet?

No. Pretty soon you will have to defend Brennan, Clapper, McCabe, and anyone else they give up. Should keep you busy.

 

[Lastamender]

He lied, proven. Why does it matter about what?

Oh Jesus fucking Christ! Will you people please get on topic or just shut the fuck up. Do you even understand the difference between Clinton's actions and Trump's in relation to national security, the integrity of the constitution and the founders intent regarding impeachment? I don't think so.

Where the impeachment case stands as Democrats prepare to bring a barrage of new witnesses

No not at all explain?

Are you of the position that trump can’t respond in kind?

He was treated maliciously

MALICIOUSLY

This entire inquiry is malicious

Bullshit. Trump has committed serious violations.

Trump is foreign policy, he really can't do much wrong.

He can and he has done so.

Hearsay proves nothing. They are looking for the crime the way Communists do.

 

[Dana7360]

Republicans are screaming that it is not a valid investigation because they don’t have access to the whistleblower

Meanwhile, Republicans block access to.....

Trump
Pence
Giuliani
Pompeo

I would add all documents from the DOJ and documents from mulvaney.

 

[NotYourBody]

You may hear that next week as more witnesses closer to Trump start testifying.

Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:

First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.

You wish it was over. This week, for your viewing pleasure, we have:

Tuesday -
Jennifer Williams, aide to Mike Pence
Lt Col Alexander Vindman, NSC aide
Kurt Volker, former US special envoy to Ukraine
Tim Morrison, NSC aide

Wednesday -
Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the European Union
Laura Cooper, Deputy Asst Secy of Defence
David Hale, Under Secy of State for Political Affairs

Thursday -
Fiona Hill, Former White House Russia Expert

I am especially interested in the testimony of Vindman and Sondland.

I bought an extra large bag of impeachment blend popcorn. I can't wait.

Hope you enjoy yourself as much as we will.......but I doubt it.

Guaranteed I will enjoy it more than you. I don't have to worry about defending the jackass.

Is it Tuesday yet?

No. Pretty soon you will have to defend Brennan, Clapper, McCabe, and anyone else they give up. Should keep you busy.

Not me. Why would I defend those people? They are not my family, friends or neighbors.

 

[WEATHER53]

Biden got what he wanted via threats and mysteriously his son ends up on a Ukrainian gravy train
Trump asked for and got nothing

Trump is being investigated and his primary accuser is hidden

What Nation and what planet are we on?

 

[Flopper]

Repeating it doesn't improve it. What I said was: "That's something of value in exchange for favor or fealty. It is exactly an impeachable offense."

What you've spilled on the page is some nonsense you wish I had said.

What you said is like the call transcript. It's available for all to see.

Trump holds up money to Ukraine for whatever purposes he held it up for. But because it may have also benefited him in the event he ran against Biden, that makes it an impeachable offense. Did you not say that?

And if so, that means that Trump couldn't have held up the money for any reason, even if he knew it would end up in corrupt hands, because Biden is in the race. Did you not say that???

So you're saying it is just a coincidence that Trump withheld the military aid just days before the phone call. And it's just coincidental that Trump dropped a request that Zelensky open a corruption investigation when discussing military aid in the phone conversation. And of course, it's just a coincidence that Biden's son worked for the company to be investigated. And it was coincidental that Trump fired the Ambassador to the Ukraine, who was not on the Trump team, just weeks before the phone call. And of course Zelensky's much sought after meeting with the president was being delayed.

WOW! What a strange series of coincidences.

Riddle me this: If Zelensky took Trump's request as a threat, how is it he had no idea US aid was being held up? I mean, if an inspector comes to my house to complain my house paint is chipping, and I offer him 100 to ignore it, we both know I bribed him. I gave him a hundred bucks, and he got in his car and left.

What the left is trying to claim here, is that Trump bribed Zelensky, and Zelensky had no idea he'd just been bribed. Yes, Trump wanted to know the association between Hunter and Ukraine. After all, the drug addict got a job in a field he didn't know anything about, in a country he didn't know anything about; not even the language, all while his father was not only the VP, but in charge of goings on in the country.

I did not claim Zelensky took Trump's request to be a threat at that time. As you said, he did know the funds were frozen. At that time, Zelensky would could consider it a simple request for a favor. However, in about a week, Zelensky would learn Trump's request for a favor was not a request.

Zelensky was told to work with Juliana which made sense because Trump had removed the ambassador. Obviously Juliana's part in this was to act as Trump's go between in regard to a public announcement of the investigation and providing details to the president. No doubt, there would have been an announcement of an investigation had the whisleblower's complaint not come out about 2 weeks after the phone call.

Again, more Thought Police claims. And please tell me where you purchased that crystal ball, because all the ones I purchased never seemed to work.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to put the pieces together.
Trump recalls the Ukraine ambassador a few weeks before freezing Ukraine military aid. Zelenski's meeting with Trump is put on hold. Trump ask Zelenski to open an investigation of the Bidens. He sends Giuliani to the Ukraine and ask Zelenski to work with him. The whistleblower exposes Trump's scheme to force Zelenski to open an investigation. The House announces an investigation of Trump. Military aid is restored.