woodguru

There is a main thing here that has far less to do with corruption, which is minor comparatively speaking.

The Ukraine has been fighting off attacks by Russia, Russia doesn't want the visuals of taking a country they want, so it has been waged with mercenaries so that Putin has a degree of plausible deniability. Without getting into whether you agree with our position supporting the Ukraine as a democratic ally, or Russia's position that the people of Ukraine want this...the US passed legislation to give them hundreds of millions in military aid. That is arms and military support.

The Ukraine has been barely holding onto a hotly contested region, and Russia has been stepping up their covert mercenary pressure. Congress passed a military aid funding bill, and Trump has blocked the implementation of it. This was crucial support, and the Ukraine was forced to retreat and give up positions that Russia immediately stepped into holding.

With this in mind, and knowing this military aid was so crucial, it is possible to start thinking about why Trump would block implementation of the military aid. Those in the pentagon and intelligence were fully aware of this breach of support at this critical time for Ukraine. Now it's possible to see where people looking out for national security interests might be alarmed if they were aware of Trump making promises that affected military support outcomes.

That this had something to do with not wanting to give aid to a corrupt country was the cover, as bad as that excuse is, the reality may be more to do with Trump promising Putin that he would block the military aid at a time Putin was putting in a hard push. It doesn't take much critical thinking to see the conflict of interest and how perhaps Putin would have an attitude about $400 million in military aid that might be hard on Putin's mercenaries, or cause them to lose this battle.

Trump had a conversation with Putin on July 31st, right smack in the middle of this. The whistle blower report had something pertaining to promises made that urgently affected national security, like perhaps military aid being withheld?

I can't say that happened, and nobody on the right can begin to say it didn't, which is why we need full disclosure to the house and senate intelligence committees. Since the white house is now willing to say it was a conversation with Ukraine and it was perfectly okay, we will know if it is more than that if the whistle blower or IC IG is prevented from talking about anything more.

PeterS

Conservatives are counting on this impeachment to correlate to the impeachment of Bill Clinton which most in this country felt unjustified and led to conservative loses in the house and the senate--though narrowly not the WH. What cons failed to understand was that Trump has given ample cause, and continues to do so, to be impeached whereas Bill simply lied about a blowjob--something even most women seemed to understand. So the correlation, in this case, is more to Richard Nixon and not Bill Clinton where Nixon resigned because he knew that the v**es in the Senate were there to impeach his sorry ass...

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Ukraine and Russia has a ceasefire from Feb 2017 and are exchanging prisoners in pr********ns for a peace agreement. In any given month in Chicago more people are k**led than in a solid year of the Ukraine/Russia bickering! The "war" has evolved into a war of words, actual frightening has stopped. as of July 2019, the formal agreement was signed. https://www.osce.org/chairmanship/425921

Civil war never materialized and several quasi states emerged who are totally dependent on Russia for all their needs while the Ukraine has become welfare dependent on the West. The longer the Ukraine keeps embargos going against the "People's Republic" the harder it will be to bring those states back into their native Ukraine. So, the upcoming peace talks may put an end to the war of words and establish a peaceful settlement.

I am not so sure we should be arming either side. I believe the Democrats would have been on firmer ground if the TEMPORARY hold on funding had been earmarked as "humanitarian aide" rather than military aid which just buys more bullets that will allow 40 or so sparsely spaced murders.

I find it disingenuous for Democrats to sue to remove guns from US citizens while threatening impeachment of the President for TEMPORARILY halting the financing of war in the Ukraine. So far the US has financed over a billion dollars, an average of $200,000,000.00 each year in k*****g apparatus in this area. The UN, with membership of 291 nations, has contributed about 1.6B that works out to $5,498,281.79 (in total) for each nation, from 2014 until today....I for one believe that the UN is not carrying their fair load.....after all this conflict has ZERO value to the USA while it carries a great deal of value to much of Europe in fuels alone....and that is what Kamira was all about, cutting the fuel off for the Russians.