what wasn t said, president biden would have done well to describe fully what happened in that meeting with putin and then answered questions from the press. and let s remember that ukraine is a party to conflict, and they weren t even a part of this conversation with putin. that s got to be very difficult for president zelensky going forward. david you know, one of the first things that president biden did when coming into office was essentially give a green light to this nord stream 2 gas pipeline deal between russia and germany. did that give them also a green light from putin s point of view to do what he s doing in■ç the ukraine? you know, my assessment is that you can argue the merits or lack thereof of that agreement, but that ukraine is such an existential threat to putin that sanctions or the threat of more sanctions, i just tonight think that s going to have don t think that s going to have any impact. using a banned chemical nerve
one who shares that opinion. a lot of people believe when you have will hurt, a very moderate republican, who is not republicaning for re-election, no ax to grind and not a fan of president trump saying there is none there from his point of view, many believe this impeachment thing has fallen far short of the goal. fu were defending the president and they will say, look, the intent is a big issue here. was there intent to let s say for instance, influence the testimony of yovanovitch? have you to show intent to derail the testimony. she testified. if you look at the intent and circle around whether there is intent of the criminal acts being investigated, that would be difficult to establish. it really is. almost everything heard secondhand, hear say or interpretation of something that wasn t said, but the person, recipient interpreted it a certain way, i know that wouldn t fly in a court of law,
2016 came from illicit sources. this happened months before the phone call in question, which is, by the way, huge, but even more. we have brand-new details about the nonwhistle-blower whistle-blower. a professional tie to a 2020 democratic candidate. that means he or she worked with for four and one of the democrats that is running against trump. i will be a conflict of interest, especially when they are giving hearsay evidence in the first place for let s recap their nonwhistle-blower whistle-blower. registered democrat. clear political bias. professional relationship with one of the 2020 democrats who want be trump. t his complaint based on hearsay, not firsthand knowledge. and also, media reports. doesn t even matter what his complaint claims, because we know now, from the transcript,o what was said and what wasn t said, don t we?e? and by the way, the common question shows no quid pro quo.