It’s a bad sign when it’s clear why all your talking points are either false or irrelevant even on a first reading. 
Worth noting that 3 of the 4 focus exclusively on the single phone conversation, consistent with Trump’s messaging, in hopes people will ignore the protracted pressure campaign, which Trump was plainly both aware & supportive of.
Just for fun:
1. There’s quite heavy handed evidence of conditionality if you speak English competently. Saying U.S. generosity hasn’t been “reciprocal” asserts a need for repayment. Following Zelensky’s discussion of military aid with...
1. There’s quite heavy handed evidence of conditionality if you speak English competently. Saying U.S. generosity hasn’t been “reciprocal” asserts a need for repayment. Following Zelensky’s discussion of military aid with...
...”I’d like you to do us a favor though” is expressing a condition. Absent strong motivation to feign ignorance of how language works, nobody would deny this. “I am hoping to do X” followed by “I want you to do Y, though” links X to Y: I expect Y in exchange for X.
2. “Person accused of wrongdoing denies it” isn’t worth much. Zelensky’s denial isn’t worth much more: Ukraine needs badly not to antagonize the U.S. administration, and the optics for Z domestically are terrible. Mountains of reporting make clear there was enormous pressure.
In particular, it’s clear that the Ukrainians were reluctant to announce the investigations demanded, and capitulated only after Trump surrogates stressed it was necessary for both the WH visit and badly needed aid.
3. Why would it matter what they knew at the time of the call? They found out soon afterwards & had clear demands, both on the call and repeated by administration representatives afterwards, telling them what the person with the power to release the aid desired.
They knew things they wanted badly were being held hostage by someone who’d made demands. Whether they learned this at the time the demands were made, or a few weeks later (having not yet satisfied the demands) doesn’t seem all that important.
4. These things occurred *after Ukraine capitulated* and had agreed to announce the investigations Trump wanted in a CNN interview, with a script literally written by U.S. officials. The only reason it didn’t happen was that the scheme became public. nytimes.com/2019/11/07/wor…
Also the “meeting” between Trump and Zelensky is not the meeting Ukraine had wanted — a formal invitation to the White House, as opposed to a conversation at the U.N. — and which the administration had explicitly stressed depended on investigations.
One other thing: This memo dwells on Ukraine’s real corruption problems to suggest—though it doesn’t quite directly argue—that Trump had other legitimate reasons for delaying the aid: His general concerns about corruption. justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl…
This is pretty crucial, because if your argument hinges on the aid not being delayed as a bargaining chip to force investigations for your political benefit, you need some kind of answer to the obvious question: Then why WAS it delayed?
The trouble with the implied answer “concerns about corruption” is that there’s no sign Trump did or asked for anything related to these concerns other than demand these two investigations. There’s nothing ELSE he was waiting for to trigger the release of the aid.
He wasn’t waiting for the Pentagon’s assessment on whether the aid would be properly spent; that was done by May. He wasn’t waiting for the government’s Ukraine policy experts to weigh in; they were unanimous the aid should be released.
Of course, whatever “concerns” he had, Congress has already made that policy judgment by passing an appropriations bill. The time for Trump to express “concerns” was before signing it into law.
But even if we bracket that, even at this late date, nobody has yet come up with a story explaining what else the delay was supposed to accomplish, or how it could have addressed any of these claimed concerns.
