mikwut wrote:I just don't know how the intentions are isolated so neatly like that. Every president is a political figure and there political motivations are a constant factor in decision making, but so is the country, so is finances, so is a whole host of other motivations. There are plausible other motivations.
Meaningful time was spent by the House managers in making the case that the meeting being withheld could not be seen as in the interest of the United States. All of Trump's advisors with experience in the region were advocating it happen. The President of Ukraine constantly asked for it, and it was promised in the infamous phone call. The language used around it included meeting with Giuliani, who was the President's personal attorney and not an agent of the United States of America, a member of the state department, or otherwise authorized to act on the behalf of the nation. He was authorized to represent Donald J. Trump, personally.
The case presented by the House includes that, points to the withholding of the meeting as abuse of the office of the President, and used the President's private, personal channels rather than the established and connected official channels of state.
Motive? It's established he avoided official channels who were advocating for the meeting in favor of personal backchannels. Using an official act (a meeting in the oval office with another head of state) as leverage for personal gain is abuse of the office of President. One doesn't need to tease out motive. The act itself isn't excusable even if the motive were meant to have some form of national benefit.