I don't see a source being cited here...it also happens to not be true. Maybe where-ever you're getting your info from is a little bit biased?

The fact is that the White House released the transcript. Not a leak, Trump approved the release. I know that because I listened to/watched the hearings, mostly live as they were happening. Audio, written, and video recordings of the hearing are available for free on the internet, as well as written versions of at least some of the original closed-door depositions. It was declassified the same day the Impeachment inquiry officially started.

This DOES seems strange at first...it's so incriminating, so why would he publish it? But it actually makes sense if he suspected that someone who was on the call would end up testifying...if the info is going to get out anyway, he might as well release it himself to make it seem like he has nothing to hide.

You keep saying IF the call was so incriminating x, y, or z thing....have you read the transcript? You can read it for free on the internet. I think it's like three pages long. If you haven't already, you should really read it and decide for yourself.

I like talking about the impeachment because it's something I've studied a little and it's something I care about, even when I disagree with whoever I'm talking about it with.

I don't like being called a liar....

I know I'm just an internet person, but you did not even ask me where I get my information from, when I say that I'm not just listening to liberal news sources, which I KNOW are biased (not that that makes everything they say is false, especially when what they say is corroborated by freely accessible public information). For the record, I'll say what I meant. I'm talking about witness testimony from people who are and were in the State Department, at least one of whom I know is a Trump appointee. And I'm not talking about sound bites. I listened to the hearings as they happened, and to both Democrat and Republican questions. And there is also the transcript, which you asked if I asked myself if I know how the liberal media got the transcript...I actually know exactly how they got it...and I DID find it strange at first, but after thinking about it, I came up with a good theory on that...but I wonder if you know where they got it?

I've challenged things you've said and when I've doubted the veracity of something, I didn't just say you weren't being honest. In order for a civil debate about something to work, you have to assume a certain amount of good faith in your interlocutor or it's no longer a meaningful debate.

For the record. The poll I mentioned DID come from a liberal media outlet (CNN), so if you want to say that the number is just made up by them, fine. I disagree because I haven't heard any evidence that the poll is made up and I haven't seen any counter polls, but who cares, it's just a poll and they're not the most reliable source of information for lots of reasons. I have a lot of feelings about polls and how people use them. In any case i'd be interested if you've seen another poll that contradicts it.

I didn't assume at all. I said I didn't understand and asked if what I said is what you meant, which is the opposite of assuming. You responded by clarifying that what I said is not, in fact, what you meant.

Ok...so you're saying I'm lying...there's nothing really more to talk about then. If you think I'm a liar then nothing I say can convince you.

That's the thing....people get distracted with what they hate about the people on the other side of the aisle and aren't focusing on the facts.

The Clintons did this or that...okay, then investigate the Clintons...it doesn't make Trump innocent.

Democrats are corrupt and stupid......their policies aren't right for the country, etc, etc.ok, then...investigate them. Or vote them out of office. But it still doesn't make Trump innocent.

Let the Republican party take over for the next ten thousand years and only Republican Presidents are elected and only Republican Congressman...everyone in the US just republican. It won't change the facts.

Truth is not a democracy...something either is or is not the case. Doesn't matter if Trump says it, or if I say it, or anyone else who has lived or will ever live. The truth isn't Republican or Democrat...it's not even bi-partisan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be as objective as you can. Try to bracket everything you feel about Democrats. Bracket, as well, everything you feel about Trump. Let it go. Put it aside for a few minutes. You don't have to bring it up to me, I'm not a Democrat.

Now look at the evidence...think about the evidence. Play the devil's advocate for both sides. Assume the facts are true and that you have no stake in it. Then decide what you want to believe.

It's the part where he refused to give bi-partisan congress-approved aid unless President Zelensky helped him smear his most likely Democratic opponent next year.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not President Trump is guilty.

I'm not sure what you mean by this...are you agreeing it's not a hoax?

On the impeachment issue I have not been taking my cues from the liberal (or conservative) media. I listened to the hearings...the witnesses...read testimony...I read the transcript which is a direct recording of Trump's wrongdoing.

I'm referring to polling that shows that about half of americans are in support of impeachment...and I am presuming that at least some of the people polled have done due diligence to the issue. Granted, of course, polls can be deceiving.

I don't really understand the metaphor here...and the stuff about Clinton is irrelevant because he's not the one being impeached right now.

But he didn't do it for us, he did it for himself. Specifically, he wanted Zelensky to provide dirt on his most likely democratic opponent, i.e., Biden.

No, it wouldn't matter if he asked for a bribe in English, sign-language, Japanese, or Swahili...asking for a bribe is wrong for the President to do, regardless of which language he decided to speak in.

The transcript wasn't invented by the liberal media.

Ooops, sorry.

That's the question...why release the transcript, and not the recording?

If the transcript was edited though, it's probably only minor differences, such that people who were on the call, like Vindman, couldn't tell from memory and their notes...though the fact that their notes differs slightly from the call transcript might be evidence that there was such an edit...we won't know unless the White House releases it though.

Though....when the transcript is so incriminating even edited, why would they bother?

That has nothing to do with why Trump is being impeached.

If i donate 50 bucks to charity and it only ends up saving me five cents, i'll pay the five cents to not have to remember that info or keep track of it

Thank you....you're now engaging the EVIDENCE that exists instead of claiming that there is none. You're defending against the legitimate accusation that the Democrats have against the President on the ground of reason and logic and not just pretending the evidence doesn't exist, like so many Republicans. If you disagree that they are pretending the evidence doesn't exists, try listening to the impeachment debate if there is a recording out there yet.

Like I said...I don't blame people for defending the President...it's that they're saying things like "hoax" when this is NOT a hoax, it's not a joke. SO many americans have seen the evidence and come to the same conclusion I have, of all political and ideological stripes. We're not all just blindly listening to what people of telling us. Some ARE, to be sure, but that's happening on both sides. Many people are convinced by the evidence they have seen, and they aren't stupid for thinking that there is something fishy going on here.

To address your argument directly...I don't think it's a strong defense. It sounds to me, if I am understanding, that you're saying that the word "favor" is a figure of speech here. There's no partucular reason to believe it is, but fine. Take out the word.

"I want you to do something, THOUGH." Right after Zelenksy asked for aid. So, unless the President just responded with a complete non-sequitur when zelensky says this...it looks bad. Not only does he follow with an immediate request...he uses the word THOUGH. This means conditionality.

That being said....you're right...it's possible that the President didn't mean it quite like that. Maybe he mispoke. Even though what's said on these calls is planned out beforehand, and he deliberately avoided the talking points that his staff gave him for the call. Maybe he just worded, whatever he really meant, really terrible, which still means he really botched the call by not being clear to Zelensky what he meant.

The call clearly isn't perfect, despite what the President says. It's horrible and inappropriate, even in the most lenient of interpretations. That isn't even the only thing about the call that looks horrible for Trump. There are other parts where he refers to a former Ukranian prosecutor who was FIRED FOR CORRUPTION as "really good" and laments that he was fired (look up Viktor Shokin). He also obliquely THREATENS his former ambassador that he fired after she was wrongfully smeared by Rudy Giuliani FOR DOING HER JOB WELL.

If the President at least admitted that the call could have gone alot better, I'd give him a lot more credit. If he at least said, "Sorry, I wasn't doing anything corrupt, I can see how you would say that though, I just REALLY botched this call." It's still a weak defense. He's still probably guilty, but at least he would be defending himself on the grounds of logic and not on magic fairy clouds. To act as irrationally as he's reacted in the face of the legitimate accusation shows poor leadership and it reeks of cover-up.