Lets talk quid pro quo

Right, so the funds are delayed by the president, and Congress has 45 days to decide. During those 45 days the funds are on hold. I remember Executive Branch lawyers were researching this very item, to inform the president what his options and his limits were according to the law.

 

Plus all they are doing is engaging in pure conjecture, pretending they can read the president's mind, when they claim he was doing X, Y or Z for "personal gain."

 

Cash payments for nothing.

 

There was no official notification, nor a cause given. The Presidential "order" to withhold funding was therefore illegal.

 

Be real. If that were true then Schiff would be trying to impeach Trump for simply holding up the funds for even one day.

 

USA Today reports, "House Republicans drafted a report to counter Democratic arguments for the impeachment of President Donald Trump for his dealings with Ukraine.

"Republicans wrote in a 123-page draft report that the evidence doesn’t support accusations of pressure or that Trump tried to cover up his conversation with Zelensky. Trump released a summary of the July 25 call on Sept. 25 and has argued that he was justified in encouraging an investigation because of widespread corruption in Ukraine."

The only problem with that is that in his April 21 phone call and his July 25 phone call, Trump never mentioned general corruption in Ukraine, only the possible, unexplained corruption of Hunter Biden, his main rival's son. https://apnews.com/92fd8a4743e8447a8f8a7ec301ebe993

The GOP report largely claims there is no evidence of Trump's crimes. “The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor,” said the draft report from Republican Reps. Devin Nunes of California on the Intelligence Committee, Jim Jordan of Ohio on the Oversight and Reform Committee and Michael McCaul of Texas on the Foreign Affairs Committee. "The fundamental disagreement apparent in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is a difference of world views and a discomfort with President Trump’s policy decisions."

The last is a crock. The House Intelligence Committee has been very specific in its charges against Trump, and none of it has to do with Trump's policies.

Also, Trump incriminated himself when he held up the military aid approved by Congress days before the July 25 call. Then, when Zelensky expressed interest in buying Javelins, Trump immediately replied, "I would like you to do us a favor, though."

The GOP defense is ridiculous, although I agree with them in one instance. Trump did not say, "President Zelensky, I am going to ask your government to interfere in our Presidential election for my personal benefit, then I will bribe you to provide incentive."

The report said there was nothing wrong with this request.

"None of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor.” That is a lie. Several witnesses corroborated the extortion, but they didn't have to. Trump's chief of staff admitted that the money was held up to get Zelensky to investigate what Trump wanted investigated. The he told the nation, "Get over it." The GOP report made no mention of Mulvaney.

USA Today continues, "The report noted that Trump has a right to block witnesses and documents from being provided because the inquiry has been “an unfair, abusive, and partisan process, and does not constitute obstruction of a legitimate impeachment inquiry.'"

Republicans say this a lot. There is only one problem. They never say why the impeachment inquiry "does not constitute obstruction of a legitimate impeachment inquiry." Neither does this report. Trump Republicans just say it, and we are supposed to believe it on their say so alone.

This is a perfunctory defense of Trump because Nunes, Jordan, and McCall all know Trump is guilty as charged, and they are relying on Trump's flunkies in the Senate to exonerate him. Trump isn't even sending his lawyers to the hearings to defend him. Why bother? He is guilty.

 

Get real. The money was released after Trump learned about the whistleblower complaint. Also he made the phony call saying he wanted nothing g from a Ukraine and there was no quid pro quo after he knew he was caught. Consciousness of guilt for sure.

And we already know what corruption occurred since if there was any actual evidence Trump would not have had to try and bribe Ukraine to fabricate an investigation.

 

The fact that Trump is not allowing anyone with first hand knowledge from testifying under oath is certainly very strong evidence of his guilt. Also of course there is no other explanation for why the aid was frozen.

Not to mention of course the words “ I need a favor though”. What personal. Favor do you think he wanted?

 

That is not how our system of justice works. You cannot accuse someone of committing a crime without proof. Then find them guilty as accused, using only conjecture, opinion and gossip, because they didn't sufficiently prove to the hate-filled mob that they are innocent.

 

Senate Republicans are all over the place when it comes to Trump's conspiracy theories. Kennedy from Louisiana has reversed himself twice. First, he says Ukraine interfered in our election. Then he said they didn't, and the Russians did it. Then, on Sunday, he said Ukraine did it.

Now Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, has said, "I don’t know if it’s true or not. But let somebody look, but when it comes to hacking into the DNC, that was all Russia. The Ukraine had nothing to do with it. So as to the Ukraine, they had zero to do with the hacking of the DNC and the stealing of the emails."

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-12-03-2019/index.html

 

Many watched Rep. Adam Schiff and his summary of the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment report. He was calm, professional, informative, and convincing. He was competent and skillful in his presentation.

This is our President:

“I learn nothing from Adam Schiff, I think he’s a maniac. I think Adam Schiff is a deranged human being. I think he grew up with a complex for lots of reasons that are obvious. I think he’s a very sick man, and he lies.”

Trump's press secretary said "Chairman Schiff’s report reads like the ramblings of a basement blogger straining to prove something when there is evidence of nothing.”

Trump's fans love this in their President.

 

It was released end of story, no investigation or announcement of one required. Zelensky confirmed again this weekend he was not pressured or extorted. And the fact remains the investigation into the matter STILL needs to occur.

 

Ukraine is fighting Russian aggression, and is dependent upon U.S. military aid. The absolute last thing Zelensky will do is piss off the mercurial American President. Of course, Trump knows that. They may both be presidents, but they are not equals, not even close.

This is what Zelensky actually said.

"I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying."

https://thehill.com/policy/internat...-talked-to-trump-about-position-of-a-quid-pro

Did you believe Trump again? He is absolutely the worst source of information. He lies a lot. Americans can't trust a thing he says.

As for the military aid, yeah, it was released and you want that to be the end of the story. Sorry, I hate to rain on your parade, but that isn't the end of the story. Trump got caught, the whistleblower submitted his complaint in August, and Congress had already started an investigation into the withheld funds.

 

There is no whistleblower and the money was released and we STILL need the investigation into the probable Biden corruption and pay for play. Zelensky, no pressure no extortion. It did not effect Ukraine military capabilities at all which have been HUGELY enhanced by Trump already. The President has a duty to protect the money we send overseas and our government from outside pay for play schemes like it appears with Biden. His doing so is not an impeachable offense.

 

So you can provide no evidence od either Hunter or Joes corruption. And you don’t think it a rather funny coincidence that Trump released the aid right after he was notified about the whistleblower complaint about the withholding of the aid.

And what do you expect Zelensky to say since Trump is still President and still controls foreign policy. And by the way he was going to give into the blackmail and announce an investigation in return for the aid money. Whistleblower complaint soured that quid pro quo. He got the money so no investigation.

 

Do you not understand that Impeachment is different from the civil justice system. Educate yourself. And there is plenty of proof of Trump blackmailing Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden to help Trump’s political campaign. In fact

“ I need a favor, though” is proof enough in Trump's own words. Nobody yet has explained that bit about Trump wanting a personal favor other than the spelled out Biden investigation.

 

Where is the evidence of Trump blackmailing Ukraine?

Nowhere is there any evidence that Trump placed any conditions on aid to Ukraine, much less as Pamela Karlan infers, that Trump demanded Zelensky "'brand my opponent a criminal.'”

This is insane. Zelensky is supposed to be the victim of blackmail and coercion, and yet Zelensky has repeated many times over, that Trump never placed any conditions upon the aid.

Now the dems finally admit that the aid was provided, and no pro quo ever took place. So now the charge is that Trump tried to do so, but failed?

The victim said it never happened, so what now, the victim is a liar?

The quid pro quo never took place, so what now, Trump still tried to do it, but failed??

There is zero evidence of any request for a quid pro quo. The victim says no coercion, no pressure, no blackmail, and no quid pro quo attempt was ever made of him by Trump. But Trump's still guilty, because the dems refuse to give up their tightly assumptions to the contrary, even though they still cannot provide a shred of evidence or proof.

So we are going to try and impeach a president based upon speculation, by his political opponents.

The dems imagine Trump guilty of the most nefarious, evil, horrible, heinous criminal acts, including high treason; based upon what?

This is exactly the same as when the dems accused Trump of colluding with the Russians. They investigate and investigate, and try to impeach him; based upon what?? Without any evidence at all, based upon nothing but their own wild assumptions.

Oh, and the "do me a favor" discussion was about 2016 election interference. you do not need to speculate, just read the transcript of the call. You know, the call where no quid pro quo was discussed, yeah, that call.

 

Abuse of Power would cover it.

 

PROBABLE CAUSE for the investigation, I don't have to prove it.

I have no idea what the internal discussions were and don't care, in the end the money was released as it always was going to be release.

You want to call him a liar that's on you. Jordan laid out five meetings he had with Trump, the VP, AG, and several Congressmen and in NONE of them was the issue of the aid raised. And we STILL need the investigation all this nonsense is doing is delaying it. These are Democrat political schemes to influence the election. Don't you realize that?

 

They had to give the people distributing the aid enough time to do so, before the end of the quarter arrived.

Remember, a review was taking place during that time, aid was being place on hold across the board, Ukraine was not being singled out.

Foreign aid funds put on hold for review - Washington Post, Aug 5th, 2019

The Trump administration has temporarily frozen and ordered a review of several key foreign aid funds that Congress has already approved, in a move that critics fear could lead to another attempted rollback of foreign aid.

The letter, viewed by The Washington Post, lists eight areas that cover a variety of assistance: international organizations; peacekeeping operations and activities; international narcotics control and law enforcement; development aid; assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia; economic support funding; foreign military financing programs; and global health programs.

An administration official said the funds targeted for review are above budgetary limits proposed by President Trump. They include big-ticket items like contributions to the United Nations and smaller items like solar panels in the Caribbean, schools in Uzbekistan and soccer programs in Central America.

 

Not a prerogative of the President. The power of appropriation is probably the strongest power of the House (and possibly the Senate as well). If the President wants to suspend those appropriations, he must first inform Congress and give them the reason for the suspension. That was not done. If that process had been followed, Congress would have 45 days to respond to the President's "request," with approval, disapproval, or no response at all. If the latter, the appropriation moves forward.
Take "the power of the purse" away from Congress, then they may as well go home, because then they become nothing more than "Presidential Advisors."

 

Trump had to release the aid with enough time for it to be processed before the end of the fiscal quarter. He could not hold it any longer.

How convenient. The crime never took place, the victim lied, and the defendant is still guilty becuase you think he wanted to commit a crime.

You claim Trump blackmailed Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden, or not receive any aid.

The defendant, Trump, says he did not such thing.

The victim, Zelensky says no such blackmail took place.

The aid was delivered.

No public actions or investigations were performed by Ukraine before the aid was delivered

And yet.... the victim is the liar, Trump wanted to blackmail Ukraine, but it failed. All you have is conjecture and rumors. This is Trump-Russia collusion hoax 2.0.

 

You do that BEFORE you suspend aid, not afterwards. That's like committing a crime and then checking to see if it's a against the law. We are being asked to allow Trump the excuse of "ignorance of the law."

 

If your assumptions are a slam dunk, where are the articles of impeachment for Trump's hold on all of the aid?

 

Presidents put a temporary hold on aid all the time. You act like this is a slam dunk. then why hasn't Schiff impeached Trump back in August for having concerns about aid, and holding it up.

US cutting military aid, hundreds of millions in cash
Obama Fights Nigerian Anti-Gay Bill, Threatens To Cut Off Aid
U.S. has spotty record on law requiring it to cut aid
U.S. withhold any of $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt
U.S. Withholds $5 Million in Antidrug Aid to Mexico
Congress Approves Aid of $1 Billion for Ukraine - and Biden withheld it