Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
But did they "discover" that the freeze was specified for interference with the next election?
The delay was not illegal. It is documented that Trump had for some time been concerned about corruption continuing in Ukraine. A new President had just been elected in Ukraine. Getting assurances from him that he would do what he ran on, get rid of corruption, was a valid reason, given that it was the President's duty to ensure that the money was to be spent as Congress directed and not spent on continuing corruption before the money was given.
BTW, the money was delivered on time. And Zelensky said there was no pressure.
|
That the rest of the evidence will show how mealy-mouthed that claim is, is the danger for the Trumplican party.
A couple of days ago it was that there was no quid prop quo.
Now Floridaman's Alan Dershowitz says "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
That assertion amounts to that even if all of the allegations are true — that Floridaman was, in fact, seeking election advantage when he demanded that Ukraine investigate his political opponents — it would still be appropriate.
Now I'm not saying that it is not normal for presidents to make foreign policy decisions with politics in mind, but what Trump did far exceeded that. He used his power to highjack a national security issue for the purpose of benefiting personally, while clearly harming U.S. interests.
But what if Floridaman sincerely, if misguidedly, believed that killing his opponents was vital for the public interest?