In Trump’s transcript, Ukraine’s Pres. appears to ask about (his just withholding) Congress’ authorized military aid. He replies, I’d like a “favor:” pursuing accusations about Biden! Is that an obvious quid pro quo of coercing a foreign power to assist in beating his 2020 campaign rival?
I’d assume: The GOP will say, surely No. Dems will say, transparently Yes.
If I was opening the impeachment inquiry process…I would start by having a band, play and sing this song! 
I read that Zelensky thanked Trump for US aid & then said Ukraine was ready to help with Russian sanctions and wanted to buy Javelins and then Trump mentions “the favor.”
Right, in the exchange following Trump’s unilateral freezing of the Senate’s help for Ukraine to resist Russia’s invasion, the transcript has Zelensky asking about obtaining the military help of the Javelins, and then Trump changes the subject to doing “the favor,” and of working with both Giuliani (his personal attorney) and Barr and the Departments of State and Justice (who so far have denied knowledge of involvement with Ukraine on this) in finding crucial dirt on Biden, his main target so far for 2020.
I imagine the next developments will be finding out what conversations the official whistleblower heard, and exploring if or how the Justice and State departments participated in pushing Ukraine to help the Trump administration damage Biden.
Yes Trump changes the subject rather then saying “in order to get these Javelins I need you to investigate Biden etc” so once again there is no actual “there , there” unless you add imaginary words to the conversation.
However Biden did publically brag about holding up a billion dollars of aid to Ukraine & Biden JR got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars from Ukraine for what may have been a fake job. Plus 3 Dem senators wrote a letter threatening Ukraine if they didn’t cooperate with Mueller. Plus 2 Dem Senators flew to Ukraine to deliver the same message but since all these people are Dems , there are no rules for them.
From what I have heard, the Whistleblower didn’t even see the transcript , didn’t complain about anything other then things in the public sphere and is a Trump hater and Dem activist. But not to worry because based on this Pelosi has set up 6 new impeachment committees.
Well, for what it’s worth. Here is today’s BBC news attempt, to “dissect” the Trump phone call!
Sometimes that is difficult, as this “educational” video illustrates!
Trump did explain why the Ukrainian military help was held up, he wanted other countries to participate in giving aid and in fact that was clearly mentioned in this call. Ukraine did get this military aid subsequently.
Here’s an interesting PBS article, I received today:
At some point or not the Dems vote in the House & they need a majority to affirm impeachment to send it to the Senate where they need 67 votes to impeach Trump for the crime of not being a slick politician.
Yes! My post argued that if Trump canceled Zelensky’s promised military help, and responds to his asking about it, with “I’d like you to do a favor” about Biden (and btw only sends the mandated aid now after this tactic was exposed), that those on the GOP right will respond, There’s “surely no there there”
(I mean, really, how could those two topics possibly be related?).
I hear you to completely affirm that analysis. You’ll make me look like a wizard 
I’m not sure what you are saying meaning the military aid was released but I don’t know when this call was “exposed” and linking the two is problematic because on the call itself Trump spent a lot of time complaining that Europe didn’t help Ukraine enough, that they talk talk talk but don’t do anything. So Trump’s implication was that the US should not bear the burden of paying all the aid.
Additionally another claim was that the transcript was produced on a highly classified computer, so the Dems claim it was changed and the WH says it was preventing leaks of Trump’s calls which has happened before.
Oh, my God. We think Trump impeachment is big news! This news item just now, from the BBC - makes this look small by comparison!
Trump’s rhetoric seems incorrect. Europe provided most of Ukraine’s aid, with adamant support and criticism of Putin’s invasion, while Trump regularly defends Putin. But all that is irrelevant to the argument here.
Namely there is no evidence Trump released the aid even Republicans had pushed him to stop blocking because Europe changed its level of support; they did not. Trump only relented when it was exposed that pushing a foreign power to help him in downing a domestic opponent could lead to impeachment, especially if it looked like he may be bribing poor Zelensky to do that with Millions of withheld dollars!
It’s better to be wise late, than never.
Well, for what it’s worth…here’s what’s happening, in the BBC today. I wonder which is a more stressful problem. Trump dealing with this impeachment stuff and the world’s media take on it…or Boris Johnson and the Brexit stuff in the UK?
Shockingly i disagree with you. First “no evidence” re European support of Ukraine is ridiculous since Trump repeatedly referred to this as a problem during the phone call. That is evidence since the phone call content is the heart of the matter. Second Europe’s support was for mostly humanitarian aid with some non-lethal military aid and some bond guarentees.
Laudable but without American military aid Ukraine could have been overrun by Russia.
The truth is i don’t like this scenario with the Trump call to Zelensky but it pales in comparison to stuff that happened under Obama where i don’t even know where to start. The Dems get their big dog and pony shows & Adam Shiff gets to make stuff up & put words into witnesses mouths & the MSM gets to fill in the blanks anyway they wish to influence people. More of the same.
Steve - they WANT to impeach, and will come up with something else anyway. That is all they’ve got. That is ALL they’ve got, waste our time and the country’s time and yap about impeachment. That’s it. Disgusting.
I will now catch hell from my wife, but I can point out that I kept it short.
A brave, but foolish man!
(Your repeated claim that Trump "repeatedly" referred to Europe’s aid seems unfactual. I only find him mention it once in his initial claim to do a lot for Ukraine (yet never connecting Europe to now killing aid).
But my point is, I never contended Trump didn’t badmouth European support. We all know he does that. I only said. “There Is no evidence Trump RELEASED Ukraine’s aid BECAUSE Europe changed its level of support, for they did Not.” Your response offers no challenge to that; they are stubborn facts.
There are no facts stubborn or otherwise it’s all speculation. Your conclusion is speculation, there is no proof for any conclusion because he never said “in order for me to release the aid i need this or that.” You claim i have no proof, but it’s up to the accuser to provide proof. We still have a presumption of innocent until proven guilty.