no evidence according to you
evidence worth confronting Zelensky with directly on the call, according to the President
whom am I supposed to believe?
No evidence is no evidence. Again, this whole idea was to make people think it was Ukraine that interfered in our election instead of Russia. That, based of various investigations -- including the one by the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee -- show that it was Russia that hacked our election. I would hope you'd believe the information from US intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the FBI, and any other reports I've forgotten that have been talked about publicly.
That for whatever reason the President can't accept all these other investigations is no reason to get Ukraine to investigate all of this again.
wrong, again, Zelensky requested Giuliani, by name, to come to Ukraine
Zelensky opened the door and ushered Giuliani through it
So if Hillary had become President in 2016 and was looking into election interference, possibly done by Trump, in a foreign country; if the President of that country requested Hillary's private lawyer to come to that country to investigated, you'd have no issue? You can't see the huge conflict of interest that Hillary's lawyer already had developed a relationship with that president starting before his election (but after Hillary was President, because he was already investigating over there)? Especially if Hillary was sending her private lawyer to do a private investigation in lieu of opening a US investigation and involving the DoJ?
who can investigate crimes before they happen?
This would appear to be a strawman. No one is asking for a Department of Pre-crime (to borrow from Minority Report). But let us imagine that there were charges of corruption in the US government during the Obama administration. Would you investigate things that occurred during the Obama administration or things that occurred during the Bush administration?
The government in Ukraine has changed since the 2016 election. If this was seriously about Ukraine getting rid of the corrupt parts of their government, why would you investigate people that are no longer part of the government before the US would want to give money? Wouldn't the idea be to investigate those currently in government, to ensure the money would be used for its intended purpose and not to line people's pockets?
again, the call was about CrowdStrike and then Biden, in that order
the President's exact words were, "the other thing", Biden-Burisma was an afterthought
That seems like an assumption on your part. First, people never "bury the lead" but always state what they want the most as the first thing? There can't be any possibility both the first and second things are important? Not to mention I'm not sure how it really matters -- since one is into an opposition candidate and the other, Crowdstrike, is about finding information leaked from the opposition party's computer server? Remember, Trump stated, "The server, they say Ukraine has it." Is that really supposed to be about any less about politics and hurting his political opponents?
and, Robert Mueller's investigation didn't get to the bottom of everything, did it?
maybe a Ukraine investigation would develop leads?
I'm sorry, "maybe... develop leads?" If there is evidence, Trump wouldn't need to develop leads. If there isn't evidence, it is an improper request and is just a fishing expedition. Again, if Hillary had been elected and there was no evidence, you'd have no issues with her personal lawyer working with the President of a foreign country that could "maybe... develop leads?" The foreign government asking for her personal lawyer would make everything above board in your eyes, and not corrupt?
