And it’s the WSJ who breaks it:

This is so fucked up. How can there not be repercussions for this? Does DJT want to get impeached?

So, apparently DJT’s takeaway from the Russia / collusion investigation is to “always collude with foreign powers.”

So, he’s the foreign collusion version of the “never put salt in your eyes” guy.

Time for impeachment. It was time 2 years ago, zero excuses now. Stop bending over for this completely corrupt fuck.

So what’s the path forward to make people actually care about this? Because Republicans are going to be wall to wall on FOX News delivering the message that this is no big deal and everyone does it.

Nothing. One side of Congress can impeach, but the other side won’t. That will be that.

I don’t care if the Senate won’t convict at this point, he needs to be impeached.

“Mr. Trump didn’t mention a provision of foreign aid to Ukraine on the call, said this person, who didn’t believe Mr. Trump offered the Ukrainian president any quid-pro-quo for his cooperation on an investigation.”

If that’s the case, seems likely nothing will come of this. However, this whole thing (meaning the whistleblower complaint) supposedly started because of some form of promise made.

At this point they all need to be put against the wall as they said in Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.

Yeah, no promise made…

…but when the Ukraine balked at this request, Trump ordered US aid to the country slashed.

Isn’t just asking for the help bad enough? I guess it isn’t anymore. We have all been gaslit to hell.

I mean at this point that seems like what needs to happen.

I agree. I just don’t think there is a way forward to remove him via impeachment at this point. He’ll run out his term and hopefully lose the next election.

How do I just ban Dan Lyons tweets from appearing here for me? Fuck that guy.

Armed revolution if we’re honest, but no one believes it so we just sit here and hope the elections are fair and people don’t vote away freedom and the rule of law.

A-fucking-men.

Shame we don’t have an extradition treaty with Ukraine and they saw fit to charge Trump with extortion of a public official.

I am somewhat suspicious that there was an explicit quid pro quo in the actual whistleblower complaint, but that the Trump side released this information about the conversation to muddy the waters-- so a question that is less damaging to him than the actual complaint gets litigated in the press so that if/when the real truth comes out, it seems like old news.