NSC official to testify he heard Trump's Ukraine call, was alarmed and alerted superiors

Thank you and yes he is a true American patriot.

And a man who was too much of a coward to serve has the audacity to claim he is just a never Trumper. The never served has zero integrity and should keep his mouth off of true patriots.

^yes

I’m going to attempt to capture each or your claims…
- First, Intent R v Mohan (1975): The unsaid intent by virtually every politician is to promote themselves and make decisions based on what will keep them in office and make them look better in the eyes of their voters. Trump is certainly no exception to that. That said, whether his primary or hidden intent was to get dirt on Biden to win the next election is true, you cannot know that without evidence. What we do know is that Ukraine has a history of corruption, there is something absolutely strange about the Biden relationship, and there is a strong belief that Clinton through the DNC could have been collaborating with the Ukrainians during the 2016 election. Either way, I would like to know for sure if Trump collaborated directly with the Russians (so far that does not seem to be the case), is there an arrangement of nepotism being generated by our former VP who is running for President (which denotes corruption in our government), and did the Clinton campaign have a relationship with the former government of the Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump (dirt which turned out to be false). In the context of a quid pro quo, intent cannot be proven if one member of the party does not realize there even is a quid pro quo.
- The details of the phone call wasn’t concealed and it was immediately released when brought into question, storing it on a more secure server is not concealment.
- Your perception (or anyone else’s) of why Trump may have withheld the money does not equate to intent. Both side have to know there is a quid pro quo and both sides are saying there wasn’t.
- The Ambassador can be fired or removed for any reason. Presidents tend to replace ambassadors all the time to promote their agenda. This is not evidence of intent.
- Shadow group? I see… the parties can hire “opposition groups” to essentially spy on candidates but when Trump uses his lawyer to explore corruption, that’s a shadowy group? Please.
- Obstructing Congressional oversight? Last I saw he’s demanding government transparency.
- The information you derive from the Taylor/Sondland texts is pure speculation on your part. You say “call me” means make sure there is no record. But to me it also sounds like he might want to explain it through texts. After all, if he was so concerned about the recorded record via text, wouldn’t he have gone out of his way to say “this is not a quid pro quo” first and then “call me”? This happens all the time with my wife and I, when we text, and the conversation gets complicated to a point where I just call her instead.
- The money was released eventually, and using your same argument, if Trump wanted a quid pro quo, why not wait for the evidence you believe was behind his intent? Could it be because he was satisfied by the outcome of the phone call? Well, then that supports both sides of the argument. Not wanting to make an announcement of it means absolutely nothing in support of intent of a quid pro quo.
- Again, Zelinsky did not know of the money being withheld. The phone call was made in July, and as you say, he found out in August.
- As for what a talking head from Fox, MSNBC, or CNN say about anyone involved here, has NOTHING to do with the issue. I could care less and you are simply trying to insert this as if to imply I am saying something against the LTC’s character. NEVER happened so like I said, find someone else to take on that argument with. I don’t take their claims at face value and unlike many of the folks chomping at the bit to bash Trump, I wait for the whole story, confirmed, and corroborated with facts before I speak it as truth.

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin To be clear, there was new stuff in the testimony. for example, previously there were questions as to the ellipses in the transcript and the White House claimed they were "a trailing off of a voice or pause". All sorts of right wing news sources told the faithful this was just another example of fakes news.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/odd-markings-ellipses-fuel-doubts-about-the-rough-transcript-of-trumps-ukraine-call/ar-AAIcuCU

But of course, as happens so often in these cases, the mainstream press got it right. These were not pauses, but instead pieces of the transcript that were left out. Such as a discussion about recordings of the Bidens in one place. I haven't found any evidence that Trump's supporters care when the WH lies to the public (over and over), but many of us do.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/politics/alexander-vindman-testimony-white-house-transcript/index.html

I find it hard to imagine any evidence of wrongdoing that will sway Trump's faithful. They have sold too much of themselves, their honor, their integrity, their morality. The only choice is to continue to follow him and believe his latest set of lies and ignore all the lies that came before. If they don't do that, they have to admit to what they willingly gave up in the quest to "win".

To date, NO ONE who was listening in on the conversation has disputed anything significant in the content of the transcript. The Whistle blower essentially stated the same information.

Once again (and I've told you this countless times), I am not among the Trump faithful. I go where I see the facts and I don't care for both the way Trump conducts himself in public or the manner in which the left attacks him unrelentingly without any regard to knowing the facts.