Sorry I pinned you in with the rest. These people are far from civil and have called me some amazingly nasty things.
Yes, I agree it's all hypotheticals but I'm not the one trying to impeach an elected president. Many people here and on the left think this isn't an extremely extremely serious matter and using hypotheticals to impeach a person America elected is acceptable. Its not in my eyes. This is a clown show.
As far as your question, no. I think he has every outlet to come out and say he was extorted without any reprucussions. I actually think a president put in place to get rid of the corruption that has plagued his nation would come out and say it was extortion.
Edit: I apologize again.
No worries. We'd probably all get a lot further in these threads if we'd cut out the personal attacks. It might not be as entertaining, though.
I get you, but I have to admit I find the way Trump has carried himself during his presidency-- the constant lying, the aggressive antagonism, etc.-- leads me to not trust him. I'm not saying I am right or wrong; it's obviously part of his method of negotiation and managing expectations, and it's a style that resonates with some people-- politicians lie, after all, and some might view his openness about it to be a reason to respect him. I think that's a big part of the reason why there are so many assumptions being made, though: People put off by him believe his lying and antagonism are indicative of shady character that leads to criminal behavior, see coercion implied in the call transcripts, etc., and consider it justification to at least see if there's anything of substance there; people such as yourself find his behavior refreshing and welcome, believe he was standing up to the establishment, and view his interactions as what might be considered unorthodox diplomacy that was not necessarily inappropriate.
Most reasonable, politically moderate/neutral-thinking people (I like to believe that includes me) would say there isn't anything clearly impeachable in front of us yet, but the whole thing smells fishy enough to merit thorough investigation. I don't understand anyone who says he has obviously not done anything wrong and this whole thing is unnecessary-- that's as shortsighted, to me, at this point as saying he is definitely guilty.
Anyway, I guess time will tell, but I'll concede it's hard not to agree with you that testimony and evidence presented so far is not airtight-persuasive, and very much up for interpretation. I can see some of both sides of that interpretation, though, and I absolutely think we need to keep pushing forward until he's either absolved or convicted.
