What drives the anti-anti-Trump left?

paulsurovell said:

 Why don't you post the excerpts that you like.

Give me a reader who, when he recommends a great article, can describe why the article as a whole is great, and not just excerpts.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 Why don't you post the excerpts that you like.

Give me a reader who, when he recommends a great article, can describe why the article as a whole is great, and not just excerpts.

 Or videos.

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Quid-pro-quo is a loser because there's Biden's tape.

If you read the material in other peoples' posts here, you know that's wrong. "Biden's tape" describes removal of an official who was an obstacle to investigating and fighting corruption. 

[Edited to add] I broke Paul's comments up into individual thoughts, to make sure my responses didn't get "lost" in the event Paul decides to respond.

 Yes, the removal of an official by a quid pro quo.

 Shokin's removal was a goal of US and EU foreign policy. An investigation of Biden is a goal of Trump's re-election campaign.

I believe this difference -- between action taken on behalf of a government's goals and action taken on behalf of one's personal goals -- to be significant. I think it's especially significant when those personal goals are pursued using public money.

Paul seems to disagree with this, if I'm understanding him correctly, seeing no significant difference. I'd be interested to hear his reasoning.

No, I don't disagree. I've said specifically several times that Trump's use of his office to get dirt on Biden is an abuse of power and should be censured. I just don't think it rises to the level of impeachment.

Trump's questions about Ukraine meddling in 2016 are legitimate questions since they relate to the conduct of the Mueller investigation and the overall FBI Russia investigation which are under Trump's purview.

I think the "quid pro quo" factor fails for several reasons, one of them is Biden's blatant quid pro quo. Trump's mention of Biden comes in a different part of the discussion than the "I want to ask a favor" comment.  There is also the fact that Ukraine was unaware of the delayed funds for a month after the conversation. And finally, both Trump and Zelensky talk about the need for the EU countries to provide more aid to Ukraine, which is consistent with Trump's explanation for the hold-up in funds.

drummerboy said:

John Solomon - surely one of the most dishonest "journalists" of the last 20 years.

You can sure pick your sources.

 The question was what did Trump mean by Ukraine's involvement in 2016. Solomon's piece is part of the answer.

Have you found Glenn Greenwald's words or are you just going to smear him with Breitbart's words?

You can sure pick your sources.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

John Solomon - surely one of the most dishonest "journalists" of the last 20 years.

You can sure pick your sources.

 The question was what did Trump mean by Ukraine's involvement in 2016. Solomon's piece is part of the answer.

Have you found Glenn Greenwald's words or are you just going to smear him with Breitbart's words?

You can sure pick your sources.

 Greenwald is another guy I gave up on a quite a long time ago.

At some point, writers write enough nonsense that there is no point in following them anymore.

But you are more than free to show us how Breitbart's characterization is wrong.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 Why don't you post the excerpts that you like.

Give me a reader who, when he recommends a great article, can describe why the article as a whole is great, and not just excerpts.

 . . . and then there are readers (like ml1) who don't even provide excerpts , , ,

But I'm happy to tell you in my own words why the article is great -- because it captures the shameful descent of Democrats and "liberals" into a neocon mindset that is based on adulation of the CIA, FBI and NSA and other agencies of the national-security state whose agendas are antithetical to democratic and progressive values.

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

John Solomon - surely one of the most dishonest "journalists" of the last 20 years.

You can sure pick your sources.

 The question was what did Trump mean by Ukraine's involvement in 2016. Solomon's piece is part of the answer.

Have you found Glenn Greenwald's words or are you just going to smear him with Breitbart's words?

You can sure pick your sources.

 Greenwald is another guy I gave up on a quite a long time ago.

At some point, writers write enough nonsense that there is no point in following them anymore.

But you are more than free to show us how Breitbart's characterization is wrong.

So you admit that you smeared Greenwald using Breitbart headlines. You trusted Breitbart. That makes you a Breitbart dupe.

So now you're a mainstream media dupe and a Breitbart media dupe.

You're the whole package.

paulsurovell said:

So you admit that you smeared Greenwald using Breitbart headlines.

As usual, it wasn’t hard to find.

https://soundcloud.com/stranahan/making-the-news-excerpt-glenn-greenwald-talks-about-breitbart-news

I think Breitbart is actually a fascinating case. And I do think right-wing media has had a lot more success in pioneering ways to challenge establishment authority that left-wing media has.

I think very much the same spirit that animates Breitbart was also the animating force behind Matt Drudge and, to a lesser extent, Rush Limbaugh — none of which have ever been part of or comfortable within the Republican establishment.

In fact, all of them, in varying degrees, has been very antagonistic to the Republican establishment. Certainly Drudge has and definitely Breitbart has, maybe not Rush Limbaugh quite as much, but to some degree, too.

So there’s obviously a lot of things at Breitbart that are published that I vehemently disagree with and sometimes find repellant just on an ideological basis.

But what I find really interesting about Breitbart is that it captured the ethos of a significant part of the conservative movement and the right-wing electorate, and even independents that have been completely excluded from all of the organs of establishment thought in the Republican party. And not only did that, but it was so independent in how it did it.

You know, it was extremely critical of Republican party leaders, and even today — I mean, obviously, I think it’s fair to say Breitbart has been partial to Trump, but one of the things that has actually impressed me is that even in this transition, when Trump nominates someone who’s record is at odds with the promises that Trump made that appealed to Breitbart’s writers and readers, Breitbart has been very vocal in being very critical, even of the candidate with whom they’re most closely associated with, which is Trump — which is integrity and a sort of editorial independence that I think most media outlets on both the left and the establishment right utterly lack.

And so there’s a lot of bad things I have to say about Breitbart articles and Breitbart writers, just on political grounds, but in terms of how they’re using their platform, and how they’re amplifying and channeling this independence and giving voice to people who are otherwise excluded, I think it’s all very impressive in terms of the impact they’ve been able to have.

paulsurovell said:

 . . . and then there are readers (like ml1) who don't even provide excerpts , , ,

He doesn’t need to. When ml1 recommended the article, a couple of days before you in the same discussion, he made it clear why O’Hehir’s thoughts in their entirety were worthwhile. Perhaps you missed his reasons as well as his link:

But as I've argued with Paul here, it's possible to hold both thoughts in one's head -- that the IC is indeed guilty of many horrible abuses, while at the same time Trump needs to be held accountable for his own offenses. ... Holding Trump accountable for his actions doesn't mean giving a free pass to the CIA and FBI. It's possible to hold all of them accountable for their crimes past and present.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

John Solomon - surely one of the most dishonest "journalists" of the last 20 years.

You can sure pick your sources.

 The question was what did Trump mean by Ukraine's involvement in 2016. Solomon's piece is part of the answer.

Have you found Glenn Greenwald's words or are you just going to smear him with Breitbart's words?

You can sure pick your sources.

 Greenwald is another guy I gave up on a quite a long time ago.

At some point, writers write enough nonsense that there is no point in following them anymore.

But you are more than free to show us how Breitbart's characterization is wrong.

So you admit that you smeared Greenwald using Breitbart headlines. You trusted Breitbart. That makes you a Breitbart dupe.

So now you're a mainstream media dupe and a Breitbart media dupe.

You're the whole package.

 jesus but your posts are getting desperate.

Also, Dave's post makes Greenwald come off a lot worse than the Breitbart headline.

paulsurovell said:

...

I don't understand your response. You say this:

No, I don't disagree. I've said specifically several times that Trump's
use of his office to get dirt on Biden is an abuse of power and should
be censured. I just don't think it rises to the level of impeachment.

The potential disagreement, in context, on whether there is a significant difference between Trump pressuring Ukraine in exchange for help in furthering his own goals, and Biden pressuring Ukraine in exchange for furthering US and EU goals.

But then you say this:

I think the "quid pro quo" factor fails for several reasons, one of them is Biden's blatant quid pro quo.

 Your phrasing here suggests Trump and Biden's actions have some equivalence, but you had also apparently agreed with me that they do not. Could you clarify?

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

So you admit that you smeared Greenwald using Breitbart headlines.

As usual, it wasn’t hard to find.

https://soundcloud.com/stranahan/making-the-news-excerpt-glenn-greenwald-talks-about-breitbart-news

I think Breitbart is actually a fascinating case. And I do think right-wing media has had a lot more success in pioneering ways to challenge establishment authority that left-wing media has.

I think very much the same spirit that animates Breitbart was also the animating force behind Matt Drudge and, to a lesser extent, Rush Limbaugh — none of which have ever been part of or comfortable within the Republican establishment.

In fact, all of them, in varying degrees, has been very antagonistic to the Republican establishment. Certainly Drudge has and definitely Breitbart has, maybe not Rush Limbaugh quite as much, but to some degree, too.

So there’s obviously a lot of things at Breitbart that are published that I vehemently disagree with and sometimes find repellant just on an ideological basis.

But what I find really interesting about Breitbart is that it captured the ethos of a significant part of the conservative movement and the right-wing electorate, and even independents that have been completely excluded from all of the organs of establishment thought in the Republican party. And not only did that, but it was so independent in how it did it.

You know, it was extremely critical of Republican party leaders, and even today — I mean, obviously, I think it’s fair to say Breitbart has been partial to Trump, but one of the things that has actually impressed me is that even in this transition, when Trump nominates someone who’s record is at odds with the promises that Trump made that appealed to Breitbart’s writers and readers, Breitbart has been very vocal in being very critical, even of the candidate with whom they’re most closely associated with, which is Trump — which is integrity and a sort of editorial independence that I think most media outlets on both the left and the establishment right utterly lack.

And so there’s a lot of bad things I have to say about Breitbart articles and Breitbart writers, just on political grounds, but in terms of how they’re using their platform, and how they’re amplifying and channeling this independence and giving voice to people who are otherwise excluded, I think it’s all very impressive in terms of the impact they’ve been able to have.

Click to Read More

I think Breitbart is actually a fascinating case. And I do think right-wing media has had a lot more success in pioneering ways to challenge establishment authority that left-wing media has.

I think very much the same spirit that animates Breitbart was also the animating force behind Matt Drudge and, to a lesser extent, Rush Limbaugh — none of which have ever been part of or comfortable within the Republican establishment.

In fact, all of them, in varying degrees, has been very antagonistic to the Republican establishment. Certainly Drudge has and definitely Breitbart has, maybe not Rush Limbaugh quite as much, but to some degree, too.

So there’s obviously a lot of things at Breitbart that are published that I vehemently disagree with and sometimes find repellant just on an ideological basis.

But what I find really interesting about Breitbart is that it captured the ethos of a significant part of the conservative movement and the right-wing electorate, and even independents that have been completely excluded from all of the organs of establishment thought in the Republican party. And not only did that, but it was so independent in how it did it.

You know, it was extremely critical of Republican party leaders, and even today — I mean, obviously, I think it’s fair to say Breitbart has been partial to Trump, but one of the things that has actually impressed me is that even in this transition, when Trump nominates someone who’s record is at odds with the promises that Trump made that appealed to Breitbart’s writers and readers, Breitbart has been very vocal in being very critical, even of the candidate with whom they’re most closely associated with, which is Trump — which is integrity and a sort of editorial independence that I think most media outlets on both the left and the establishment right utterly lack.

And so there’s a lot of bad things I have to say about Breitbart articles and Breitbart writers, just on political grounds, but in terms of how they’re using their platform, and how they’re amplifying and channeling this independence and giving voice to people who are otherwise excluded, I think it’s all very impressive in terms of the impact they’ve been able to have.

 Which makes clear that what @drummerboy posted was a distortion of Glenn's views on Breitbart since there is no trace of Glenn's antipathy for Breitbart's content:

there’s obviously a lot of things at Breitbart that are published that
I vehemently disagree with and sometimes find repellant just on an
ideological basis.

or

And so there’s a lot of bad things I have to say about Breitbart articles and Breitbart writers, just on political grounds

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 . . . and then there are readers (like ml1) who don't even provide excerpts , , ,

He doesn’t need to. When ml1 recommended the article, a couple of days before you in the same discussion, he made it clear why O’Hehir’s thoughts in their entirety were worthwhile. Perhaps you missed his reasons as well as his link:

But as I've argued with Paul here, it's possible to hold both thoughts in one's head -- that the IC is indeed guilty of many horrible abuses, while at the same time Trump needs to be held accountable for his own offenses. ... Holding Trump accountable for his actions doesn't mean giving a free pass to the CIA and FBI. It's possible to hold all of them accountable for their crimes past and present.

 Actually posting the excerpts he likes would tell us more than this truism.

paulsurovell said:

Which makes clear that what @drummerboy posted was a distortion of Glenn's views on Breitbart since there is no trace of Glenn's antipathy for Breitbart's content:

It’s not a full accounting — what headline is? — but it’s also no distortion. 

See: Noah vis-à-vis Sanders.

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

John Solomon - surely one of the most dishonest "journalists" of the last 20 years.

You can sure pick your sources.

 The question was what did Trump mean by Ukraine's involvement in 2016. Solomon's piece is part of the answer.

Have you found Glenn Greenwald's words or are you just going to smear him with Breitbart's words?

You can sure pick your sources.

 Greenwald is another guy I gave up on a quite a long time ago.

At some point, writers write enough nonsense that there is no point in following them anymore.

But you are more than free to show us how Breitbart's characterization is wrong.

So you admit that you smeared Greenwald using Breitbart headlines. You trusted Breitbart. That makes you a Breitbart dupe.

So now you're a mainstream media dupe and a Breitbart media dupe.

You're the whole package.

 jesus but your posts are getting desperate.

Also, Dave's post makes Greenwald come off a lot worse than the Breitbart headline.

 You're grasping for straws. The fact remains, you relied on Breitbart using their headline which omitted his antipathy for their content.

DaveSchmidt said:

It’s not a full accounting — what headline is? — but it’s also no distortion. 

See: Noah vis-à-vis Sanders.

 You failed on this once. Why fail twice?

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

...

I don't understand your response. You say this:

No, I don't disagree. I've said specifically several times that Trump's
use of his office to get dirt on Biden is an abuse of power and should
be censured. I just don't think it rises to the level of impeachment.

The potential disagreement, in context, on whether there is a significant difference between Trump pressuring Ukraine in exchange for help in furthering his own goals, and Biden pressuring Ukraine in exchange for furthering US and EU goals.

But then you say this:

I think the "quid pro quo" factor fails for several reasons, one of them is Biden's blatant quid pro quo.

Your phrasing here suggests Trump and Biden's actions have some equivalence, but you had also apparently agreed with me that they do not. Could you clarify?

I think you are failing to understand the difference between Trump's requests for help on the Russia investigation (legitimate) and on Biden (personal political gain, not legitimate).

The quid pro quo question is separate and I explained why I think it's a loser for the Democrats.

On censure vs impeachment, here are a few opinions:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-impeachment-would-be-uncertain-process-congress-could-censure-him-ncna1031016

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/09/26/censure-trump-don-impeach-him/EuKckBIdQADWBT7lk8Wl7H/story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/02/rahm-emanuel-impeachment-pelosi-has-many-good-options/

This is a much better explanation of what I tried to say in my last response to @PVW

https://www.thenation.com/article/ukrainegate-biden-trump/

paulsurovell said:

 You failed on this once. Why fail twice?

I’m content to let everyone else here dwell on this:

You're grasping for straws. The fact remains, you relied on Breitbart using their headline which omitted his antipathy for their content.

And then, once that puts them in a mirthful mood, this:

DaveSchmidt said:

Dore dissing a Twitter foil's profile pic: "I guess he was on his way to play the lead in the Paul Lynde movie."

paulsurovell said:

 Why don't you post the excerpts that you like.

 I liked the entire article 

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 You failed on this once. Why fail twice?

I’m content to let everyone else here dwell on this:

You're grasping for straws. The fact remains, you relied on Breitbart using their headline which omitted his antipathy for their content.

And then, once that puts them in a mirthful mood, this:

DaveSchmidt said:

Dore dissing a Twitter foil's profile pic: "I guess he was on his way to play the lead in the Paul Lynde movie."

 I'm not getting the whole Paul Lynde thing. Must've missed a post somewhere.

paulsurovell said:

Ah, you are distinguishing between Trump's asking for an investigation into 2016 meddling and Trump's asking for an investigation into Biden. That makes more sense, thanks.

Even the 2016 issues don't leave Trump in the clear here, IMO. First, Trump seems to have bought into the idea that there's literally a server somewhere in Ukraine that is either Clinton's email server or the DNC server, a theory something I believe you do not subscribe to, and which the Nation article you shared calls "bizarre." And we're still left with the fact that the only corruption Trump seems to care about is that which involves his political rivals.

Still, if that were solely Trump's focus, I share your doubts that would pass the high bar for impeachment. However, from the rough transcript of Trump's call with Zelensky, we have this:

The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me 

 Although you distinguished between the issue of 2016 meddling and investigating Biden, Trump here does not.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Questions about Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election are legitimate.

What "meddling" do you say would be looked at? What Trump was talking about, or something else?

And if something else, what exactly?

Efforts by the Ukrainian government to help Hillary and damage Trump. I've been posting about that for more than two years. John Solomon of The Hill, is a regular on Fox and surely has Trump's ear:

In three parts.

Part 1 of 3

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441892-ukrainian-embassy-confirms-dnc-contractor-solicited-trump-dirt-in-2016

...

That's not what Trump was talking about.  Nothing in the memo of the conversation between Trump and the President of Ukraine is about that. 

paulsurovell said:

I think the "quid pro quo" factor fails for several reasons ...There is also the fact that Ukraine was unaware of the delayed funds for a month after the conversation.

What do other commenters think of this point by Paul? 

PVW said:

 Although you distinguished between the issue of 2016 meddling and investigating Biden, Trump here does not.

 asking to search for the DNC server in Ukraine might not pass the high bar for impeachment. But it might pass the high bar for invoking the 25th Amendment. 

DaveSchmidt said:

What do other commenters think of this point by Paul? 

It's not relevant given what's in the transcript of the call. It's not as though Ukraine isn't going to be dependent on aid from the U.S. on an ongoing basis. The implied threat stands on its own even if the aid appropriated for this year was already sent. 
And as far as I'm concerned the request to investigate Biden is an abuse of power anyway even if it wasn't tied to the aid.  

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

Ah, you are distinguishing between Trump's asking for an investigation into 2016 meddling and Trump's asking for an investigation into Biden. That makes more sense, thanks.

Even the 2016 issues don't leave Trump in the clear here, IMO. First, Trump seems to have bought into the idea that there's literally a server somewhere in Ukraine that is either Clinton's email server or the DNC server, a theory something I believe you do not subscribe to, and which the Nation article you shared calls "bizarre." And we're still left with the fact that the only corruption Trump seems to care about is that which involves his political rivals.

Still, if that were solely Trump's focus, I share your doubts that would pass the high bar for impeachment. However, from the rough transcript of Trump's call with Zelensky, we have this:

The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me 

 Although you distinguished between the issue of 2016 meddling and investigating Biden, Trump here does not.

 You posted Trump's reference to Biden. Earlier in the conversation he talks about 2016 meddling by Ukraine. Biden is not mentioned here. This is Trump asking Zelensky for help in investigating 2016 meddling by Ukraine. The "server" is not the focus of his request:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

What Trump means by "a lot of it started with Ukraine" is discussed in detail in the John Solomon article I posted above in 3 parts:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/what-drives-the-anti-anti-trump-left/politics-plus?page=next&limit=90#discussion-replies-3480828

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/what-drives-the-anti-anti-trump-left/politics-plus?page=next&limit=90#discussion-replies-3480830

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/what-drives-the-anti-anti-trump-left/politics-plus?page=next&limit=90#discussion-replies-3480831

Here are some excerpts from the Solomon article on Ukraine meddling in 2016:

The boomerang from the Democratic Party’s failed attempt to connect Donald Trump to Russia’s 2016 election meddling is picking up speed, and its flight path crosses right through Moscow’s pesky neighbor, Ukraine. That is where there is growing evidence a foreign power was asked, and in some cases tried, to help Hillary Clinton.

In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort’s dealings inside the country in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.

Chaly’s written answers mark the most direct acknowledgement by Ukraine’s government that an American tied to the Democratic Party sought the country’s help in the 2016 election, and they confirm the main points of a January 2017 story by Politico on Chalupa’s efforts.

The fresh statement comes several months after a Ukrainian court ruled that the country’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau, closely aligned with the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, and a parliamentarian named Serhiy
Leshchenko wrongly interfered in the 2016 American election by releasing documents related to Paul

Nellie Ohr, wife of senior U.S. Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, acknowledged in congressional testimony that, while working for the Clinton-hired research firm Fusion GPS, she researched Trump's and Manafort’s ties to Russia and learned that Leshchenko, the Ukrainian lawmaker, was providing dirt to Fusion.

In addition, I wrote last month that the Obama White House invited Ukrainian law enforcement officials to a meeting in January 2016 as Trump rose in the polls on his improbable path to the presidency. The meeting led to U.S. requests to the Ukrainians to help investigate Manafort, setting in motion a series of events that led to the Ukrainians leaking the documents about Manafort in May 2016.

Over lunch at a Washington restaurant, Chalupa told Telizhenko in stark terms what she hoped the Ukrainians could provide the DNC and the Clinton campaign, according to his account.

“She said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot, from the election,” he recalled.

Telizhenko said that as he began his research, he discovered that Fusion GPS was nosing around Ukraine, seeking similar information, and he believed they, too, worked for the Democrats.

As a former aide inside the general prosecutor’s office in Kiev, Telizhenko used contacts with intelligence, police and prosecutors across the country to secure information connecting Russian figures to assistance on some of the Trump organization’s real estate deals overseas, including a tower in Toronto.

Telizhenko said he also was instructed by his bosses to meet with an American journalist researching Manafort’s ties to Ukraine.

About a month later, he said his relationship with the ambassador soured and, by June 2016, he was ordered to return to Ukraine. There, he reported his concerns about the embassy’s contacts with the Democrats to the former prosecutor general’s office and officials in the Poroshenko administration: “Everybody already knew what was going on and told me it had been approved at the highest levels.”

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

 Why don't you post the excerpts that you like.

 I liked the entire article 

 Excellent! 

I don't get Paul's point - anyone else?  Is he still hung up on Hillary?

paulsurovell said:

This is Trump asking Zelensky for help in investigating 2016 meddling by Ukraine. The "server" is not the focus of his request:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

What Trump means by "a lot of it started with Ukraine" is discussed in detail in the John Solomon article I posted above in 3 parts:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/what-drives-the-anti-anti-trump-left/politics-plus?page=next&limit=90#discussion-replies-3480828

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/what-drives-the-anti-anti-trump-left/politics-plus?page=next&limit=90#discussion-replies-3480830

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/what-drives-the-anti-anti-trump-left/politics-plus?page=next&limit=90#discussion-replies-3480831

No, what Trump was talking about has nothing to do with the John Solomon piece.  Read the text you cut-and-pasted.  Since Trump actually says, "Crowdstrike", you can't say that he wasn't talking about "the server".