Look, if you want to take issue with my choice of language, that's fine. However, there's no need to mock me and otherwise be a condescending jerk about it. This isn't court - conjecture is permitted. Let's try to have a civil discussion, mkay?
But again, your argument hinges on the fact that there is a possibility that Biden said something in Ukraine. There's also a possibility that he said something in the US. Why is Trump only investigating one of those possibilities if he is truly concerned that Biden is corrupt?
Furthermore, investigation is NOT the job of the President and his personal attorney (who has repeatedly expressed publicly that he was, in fact, acting in his capacity as Donald Trump's personal attorney, and not as a representative of the US government in Ukraine).
Additionally, the request was specifically that Ukraine announce an investigation into Biden. While I'm not a lawyer, I'm fairly certain that announcing the target of your investigation before it begins is not standard practice.
This isn't court - conjecture is permitted.
Logical and rational reasoning does not caution against conjecture outside of a courtroom? Yes, they do. Court or no court, conjecture is not a rationally persuasive form of argumentation. Yes, you are permitted to make the bad argument of conjecture but it is still a bad argument, court or no court.
But again, your argument hinges on the fact that there is a possibility that Biden said something in Ukraine. There's also a possibility that he said something in the US. Why is Trump only investigating one of those possibilities if he is truly concerned that Biden is corrupt?
This has been answered. It is
known that there are witnesses in Ukraine and those witnesses are also
known. It is also
known Biden spoke to Ukrainians about funding, withholding the funds, and terminating the prosecutor.
Furthermore, investigation is NOT the job of the President and his personal attorney (who has repeatedly expressed publicly that he was, in fact, acting in his capacity as Donald Trump's personal attorney, and not as a representative of the US government in Ukraine).
Trump is not personally investigating. Trump may, consistent with the Constitution, ask foreign governments to conduct an investigation (Politico article I cited to makes this point). The reference to his personal attorney in the call, or use of him, raises questions but does not establish his narrative as false.
Additionally, the request was specifically that Ukraine announce an investigation into Biden. While I'm not a lawyer, I'm fairly certain that announcing the target of your investigation before it begins is not standard practice
A bit inaccurate. He wanted an investigation and he wanted an announcement of the investigation. Of course, you present no basis for being "fairly certain" that such an announcement is "not standard practice." Such an unsubstantiated remark does not make your argument persuasive. Assuming such an announcement may be unorthodox, that does not establish Trump's narrative as false.
Bolton was concerned Trump was beginning to believe or did believe in these narratives peddled by Giuliani. Others expressed concern Giuliani was convincing Trump of the false Ukraine theme.
"Last month, Trump’s former homeland security adviser Tom Bossert lashed out at Giuliani for promoting what he said was a “completely false” theory regarding Ukraine’s alleged interference in the 2016 election." Giuliani responds to report Bolton called him a 'hand grenade'
"President Trump was repeatedly warned by his own staff that the Ukraine conspiracy theory that he and his lawyer were pursuing was “completely debunked” long before the president pressed Ukraine this summer to investigate his Democratic rivals, a former top adviser said on Sunday.
Thomas P. Bossert, who served as Mr. Trump’s first homeland security adviser, said he told the president there was no basis to the theory that Ukraine, not Russia, intervened in the 2016 election and did so on behalf of the Democrats. Speaking out for the first time, Mr. Bossert said he was “deeply disturbed” that Mr. Trump nonetheless tried to get Ukraine’s president to produce damaging information about Democrats...
Mr. Bossert blamed Mr. Giuliani for filling the president’s head with misinformation. “I am deeply frustrated with what he and the legal team is doing and repeating that debunked theory to the president. It sticks in his mind when he hears it over and over again, and for clarity here, George, let me just again repeat that it has no validity.”
Other former aides said separately on Sunday that the president had a particular weakness for conspiracy theories involving Ukraine, which in the past three years has become the focus of far-right media outlets and political figures. Mr. Trump was more willing to listen to outside advisers like Mr. Giuliani than his own national security team."
Trump Was Repeatedly Warned That Ukraine Conspiracy Theory Was ‘Completely Debunked’
This evidence shows it is plausible Trump was sincerely convinced of Giuliani's theories involving Ukraine. The evidence also shows members of Trump's own administration attempted to dissuade him from believing in those theories. The latter piece of evidence is germane to showing Trump reasonably should have known Biden did not act improperly and Ukraine/Clinton connection to the 2016 election interference is untenable.
Regardless, you have not made a demonstration Trump's narrative, his reason(s) to ask for an investigation were false, a facade, pretext.
