There is a transcript...but, crucially, that transcript does not actually say what you have alleged.

The best argument that can be mustered to that effect is there was an implication that Trump withheld funds (which apparently the Ukranian government didn't know about until well after the call) and then in some sort of subtext of the phone call there's an unspoken quid-pro-quo.

This accusation comes after years of completely fabricated allegations of Russian collusion, and it comes from the same people who continually lied in service to that fabricated narrative. Sold in much the same manner as this one.

When you read the transcript, it was the Ukranian president who brought up Rudy Guliani and the investigations. Trump mentioned Crowdstrike...which is a perfectly valid thing to look into because the entire Russian interference hoax is based on Crowstrike's "analysis" of the DNC servers. An "analysis" that was never independently verified. In fact, the FBI only ever got a draft of a report from Crowdstrike, one that had gone through DNC lawyers before ever being handed over. That is not evidence. It would be quite nice to know exactly what the fuck Crowdstrike was up to, especially since the organization had a bunch of puzzling and concerning ties inside the Ukraine.

It's also worth noting that the decision to withhold the funds in question was made while there was a Ukranian election going on.

Trump ordered a review of how the funding was to be used. And this was done after the Trump administration had gone much farther in the provision of military aid to the Ukraine than the Obama administration.

And this comes as the Trump administration in general has been reevaluating aid to all manner of countries, including harassing our NATO allies to actually pony up and pay for shit they are supposed to be paying for.

So with a well-established track record of taking a more skeptical approach to foreign aid in general, having already provided significantly more military aid to the Ukraine (including weapons) than the Obama administration, we're expected to see that Trump ordering a review of further aid to the Ukraine while it was unknown as to who, exactly, was going to be leading the Ukranian government is improper.

That's quite a stretch.

Trump appoints leaders of those agencies with the advice and consent of the senate.

Trump has to appoint people that will be confirmed.

And even those appointees have limited power. Just look at Jeff Sessions.

Things are not remotely as you are portraying them.

No, I'm not.

I've read the transcript multiple times and being a life-long speaker of English I'm aware of how often the term "favor" is used as a nicety rather than a direction. Trump's exact quote on "favor":

"I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say, Crowdstrike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people...The server, they say, Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General contact your people and get to the bottom of it."

Since we now know, according to even Muller's report, that there was no Russian collusion the question becomes where that allegation came from. And Crowdstrike is at the center of it. It is not the least bit inappropriate for Trump to ask an incoming president to look into that situation and to warn him that some of the same corrupt actors that helped set fire to the political system in the United States might be surrounding him in the Ukraine.

That is the "favor" being asked by Trump, and there's nothing remotely illegal or inappropriate about it.

Your suggestion would require us to forget that administration appointments are often encouraged by senators in the first place.


A fair number of his personnel choices have been suggested by people who are reliably swamp creatures.

He most certainly was not.

He was accused of having a conversation with a Russian that was completely inconsequential and goaded into recusing himself because of that conversation. And that happened immediately.

I suggest you review the record of what happened more carefully. It might help you get down off this silly ledge you're on.