Vous pouvez ajouter des informations de localisation à vos Tweets, comme votre ville ou votre localisation précise, depuis le Web et via des applications tierces. Vous avez toujours la possibilité de supprimer l'historique de localisation de vos Tweets. En savoir plus
I’ve read and analyzed the transcript of the Zelensky call and the whistleblower complaint, which is based on testimony and news reporting without any first-hand knowledge. Neither document seems to provide evidence of quid pro quo or election interference.
The issues being raised are twofold: is it legal for President Trump to ask about allegations regarding a political opponent, and is it appropriate?
To answer the first part: it is legal for the United States to work with foreign governments on investigations, especially an investigation involving American influence.
Whether it is appropriate for the President to discuss that on this particular call is simply a political question. But it is a question of style, not legality.
Technicality, curious...how is someone deemed a "political opponent" if the person has yet to be the "chosen" one....
The Presidential job is to enforce the law, so legal & right to find out what happened in 2016. Question then is how/why does an upcoming election void that?
Using the DoJ to go after your opponents is impeachable. Inviting a foreign government to interfere with our elections, TWICE, is a crime. Trying to cover it up is a crime, threatening the whistleblower is a crime.
Is it Trump's fault that certain criminals that he already planned to investigate...decided to run for president?
How about the treaty with Ukraine from 1999 that Joe Biden helped pass. Did everyone forget about that or does no one know the law? It was legal for Trump to ask for help.pic.twitter.com/NIgSIpGQrp
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.
