President Trump is correct about the divisive character of the impeachment inquiry into his July 25th dialogue with his Ukrainian counterpart.

(5) comments

Michael R May

Your refusal to objectively grasp the facts of Trump's own words answers my question as to which side of the divide you stand on. Please recall Trump's own words as well as my original point: "Yes, it will divide Americans whose fidelity to fact and the Constitution can recognize a political 'favor' in exchange for selling anti-tank weapons to a brave nation fighting Russian insurgents for the raw reality of Trump’s deal."

Allegiance to Trump on this point only benefits the Russians. I suppose too that your support Trumps' abandonment of our Kurdish allies which -- again - benefits the Russians. "tis time to show you allegiance to our Republic, not Trump.


I am resubmitting this revised response in the hope that the right hand section of the comments will not be cut off.

Michael May is extremely confused about this conversation between the two presidents. There are 439 words between the Ukrainian president's passing mention of Javelin missiles and President Trump's mention of Joe Biden. "Crowdstrike" has nothing to do with Joe Biden. Crowdstrike is a private security firm which concluded that the DNC computer servers were hacked by the Russians, a conclusion which has been demolished by

President Trump is interested in Crowstrike because it may be part of the hoax which suggested Trump colluded with the Russians in the 2016 campaign.

There is nothing in the text which would even remotely suggests that President Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine unless the investigation of probable corruption involving Joe and Hunter Biden be reopened. The best evidence that there was nothing inappropriate about this conversation is that both Congressman Adam Schiff and Speaker of the House Pelosi felt compelled to lie through their teeth about the content of the conversation. The actual conversation did not fit their claims. Schiff's opening statement, at what was supposed to be a very serious "impeachment" inquiry, was a pack of lies which he tried to excuse as a "parody". Pelosi then parroted the lie that Trump had asked the Ukrainians to create lies about Biden.

Past precedent requires the House to vote on whether to initiate an impeachment investigation in which both parties are allowed to participate. This has not been done. Many Democrat leaders have vowed to impeach Trump since the day he won the election. The goal has been to find any excuse to justify impeachment. This is about a political power grab, not upholding the law or the constitution.

As more information comes out, the whole proposition that Trump proposed a quid pro quo of an investigation of Biden in exchange for continued American aid becomes ever more ludicrous. Ambassador Volker made clear that the reason for the hold on Ukrainian aid was Ukrainian corruption and concern about Ukrainian involvement in the Russia hoax. “President Zelenskyy has stated he did not feel pressured to investigate Biden. This is hardly surprising since, at the time of his conversation with President Trump, he had not even been informed there was a hold on American aid. Indeed, his comments in the conversation indicated only that he soon expected to buy more Javelin missiles.

On September 9th, in response to speculation that President Trump was withholding aid, Ambassador Sondland, US Ambassador to the European Union, stated “I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.”

If you examine the actual evidence, the whole quid pro quo theory with respect to Trump is a myth.


A correction: The beginning of the second to the last paragraph should read, "On September 9th, in response to speculation that President Trump was withholding aid as part of his political campaign,"

People should read the text of the telephone conversation between the two presidents, Ambassador Volker's testimony and the texts between ambassadors in order to understand what a hoax this is. All are available on line. To save time, however, just read the text of the two president's conversation to see what a nothingburger it is.

Michael R May

This is the what Mr. Bohlen's trivializes as the "passing reference" to Javelin missiles by the Ukrainian President in the phone conversation with President Trump one week after the Office of Management and Budget reported that President Trump had suspended "all U. S. Security assistance to Ukraine":

President Zelenskyy: “I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins [anti-tank missiles] from the United States for defense purposes.”

President Trump: “I would like you to do us a favor . . .”

No word count by Mr. Bohlken can obscure Trump's owns words in linking this "favor" to the Bidens. In the context of the words of the memo issued by the White House Mr. Bohlken's word count is a miscount. The White House memo alone is grounds to inquire further into whether grounds exist for Impeachment.

Sadly, Mr. Bohlen declines to rally to the rule of law.


As I pointed out, President Zelenskyy expressed gratitude for American help and confidence he would be able to procure Javelin missiles. Trump said nothing to contradict that. He merely asked for favors to investigate corruption which affected America. There is not a word suggesting that he conditioned future aid on those investigations being conducted. We now know that the Ukrainians had already reopened the Biden investigation before President Trump made this request.

Sean Hannity just ran a series of videos showing that, each month since his election, the left wing media and the Democrats have made comments favoring the impeachment of the President. This inquiry, which violates the precedent established by all presidential impeachment hearings in American history, is not based on any substance, but on wishful thinking by the Democrats in order to overturn an election they lost.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.