The WSJ is essentially arguing "no quid pro quo because the assistance to the Ukraine was EVENTUALLY

[Atticus]

delivered."

So, if you are drowning and I watch as you thrash and sputter and then slide under the water and out of sight and THEN throw you a life preserver, are you saved? Is not the intentional delay of doing what is right and urgently necessary in itself a wrong?

(And, even as we counter their ridiculous arguments let's be clear: no quid pro quo is necessary to establish that Trump asked a foreign power to contribute to his re-election and meddle in our election.)

[C_U_L8R]

1. It's the extortion.

[tetedur]

2. Imagine the position Ukraine is in now.

As long as Trump is president, they have to "go along" with his scam or they don't get military aid. If they would have tried to expose what was going on, they would have been vilified by the Republicans and perhaps they would have utterly refused to hand over the appropriated money.

If they would have admitted that they felt pressure from the Trump administration, they would be riding on a razor's edge.

Yeah he put them over a barrel and Putin benefits.

[Yavin4]

3. It's not a bank robbery since the bank got the money back in the end.

Where's the crime?

[tblue37]

4. So if you promise to give the gangsters the protection money they demand, then they

didn't do anything wrong by demanding the protection money in the first place, even if they roughed you up a little bit at the beginning, just to make sure you knew they meant business.

[Ms. Toad]

5. Bad example -since legally the answer is no.

There is no affirmative duty to toss a life preserver, so you are free to just watch them drown (unless you tossed then in in the first place)