Kellogg didn't testify to that under oath. The GOP is pulling it from a press release he issued. whitehouse.gov/briefings-stat…
1. Ukraine has a long history of corruption.
2. Trump had a preexisting dislike of Ukraine.
3. Ukraine attacked Trump during 2016 election.
... this is supposed to prove Trump *wouldn't* blackmail Ukraine?
I don't... wait, what? How is this possibly relevant to anything? What does the GOP think this proves?
You know what, never mind, moving on from this nonsense.
Zelensky on 3 occasions without conditions."
Yes, and then despite massive, sustained, universal pressure from Exec Branch officials who were encouraging him to go ahead with it, Trump ~mysteriously~ refused to schedule it.
Ukrainian officials interacted often with US officials between May
and Sept 2019."
... yes, and were repeatedly told by senior US officials they wouldn't get the meeting unless they announced investigations.
GOP is right on this one. The evidence was short of conclusive, since those who could answer it didn't testify.
The UN ain't at all a substitute for the Oval Office. The bilat was an appeasement that was intended to smooth the way to the actual WH meeting.
This is not true. Several witnesses testified that *they didn't know* if it was linked.
Sure, this seems to be true. The Ukrainians seem to have first brought it up a few hours after the phone call.
investigations in his meetings with senior US gov't officials."
In the GOP's fantasy, Zelensky should've said: "Excuse me, Mr. Senator? Yes your president is currently attempting to bribe me, can you plz help."
And it didn't get them their WH meeting or the release of the security assistance, now did it?
Yes, but it did occur after Zelenskly told Sondland he'd go in front of a microphone on CNN and announce the investigations.
All right, let's see how the GOP is defending the Giuliani mess.
2. POTUS thinks the U.S. government's national security and foreign policy agencies are a bunch of deep state operatives trying to take him down as part of an illegal coup, and he can't trust any of them.
4. Volker/Sondland/Perry were all senior gov't officers with official interests in Ukraine policy. (Yes, they should've known better.)
Again, the GOP's *defense* is "POTUS hated Ukraine because his personal lawyer fed him lies, poison, and conspiracy theories about it, so in order to not be destroyed Ukraine needed Giuliani to like them."
What. The. Fuck. Then who was he speaking on behalf of??
If Giuliani wasn't speaking for Trump as his attorney, and not speaking for Trump as a de facto government agent, what was he?
Both Sondland and Volker testified that their involvement with Giuliani was damaging to US nat sec interests, but Trump gave them no choice.
JFC, then what was the point of the previous 77 pages that denied that ever happened??
2. There are "legitimate concerns" about the Bidens being corrupt in Ukraine.
3. There are "legitimate questions" about the extent to which Ukraine conspired against Trump in 2016.
It was an op-ed expressing concern about Trump's embrace of Russia's right to invade Ukraine and seize their territory. thehill.com/blogs/pundits-…
Yes, it is true: some Ukrainian politicians were alarmed by a Republican presidential candidate who indicated that he was fine with Russia invading and annexing their country.
This is interference in a US election, per GOP.
But let's break down what the GOP is claiming here.
and this proves that Trump asking Ukraine to investigate a 2020 rival was in no way an attempt to interfere in the 2020 election.
As Dr. Hill pointed out, lots of countries said similar things. But Trump only hates Ukraine.