GOP senators prepared to acknowledge quid pro quo, plan to argue it was legal

It took this for you to question trumps intellect? Holy moly...

 

Some things can be explained away as just rumors like the moat or scorned people. The Doral thing cant be or this or the fire and fury comment

 

Okay, let's stack things up:

1.A sworn court afadavit of extortion by Sholkin
2. An on-camera admission of extortion by Joe
3. Another on-camera interview of Hunter admitting it was his father's name that got him a no-show job and a fat paycheck.

Sounds like you're laughing past a graveyard.

 

the aid was temporarily suspended, to force Ukraine to comply with Trump's insane & paranoid wild goose chase over the so-called "missing" DNC server.

this was a criminal act

 

So since Bidden was better at extortion his wasn't? Those funds Bidden used as leverage weren't his to do that they were congresses.

If you wanna stick with Criminal you gotta take them both down

 

Go ahead and impeach Biden and Trump I'm all for it

 

You've heard of the criminal justices system correct?

 

The MAJORITY always has the power to overrule the minority just as the GOP had that power prior to LOSING the 2018 elections. Perhaps if they had used that power and impeached your BLOTUS for his OOJ crimes back then the Republicans would have had greater control over the process. They didn't so they lost that power because of their own failures. We the People did not trust them to do what was right for the nation and gave the Dems the opportunity instead.

I recommend that you change your news sources because there have already been releases of transcripts of the closed door hearings to the public.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/7760...-from-closed-door-trump-impeachment-depositio

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/li...11-04-2019/h_9fbc1be05958accff3813343ebb35ad1

 

What we have of the transcript exposes your BLOTUS as requiring a QPQ which is WHY we now have an impeachment inquiry that your BLOTUS's regime is LYING about and trying to cover it up.

 

And when does the fiscal year end?

 

Nonsensical deflection.

 

I don't think anyone doubts that Hunter got the job because he can open American doors. (Do you have a link to that 'on camera interview?')

 

It is like perjury - perjury is lying under oath but - not all lying under oath is perjury. Not all quit pro quo is illegal. Not only is it not illegal - it is the norm with respect to foreign policy. "You do this for me - I do this for you".

If there was criminal actions done by a US citizen (Biden in this case) - or a non US citizen - we often ask foreign nations to help out.

What is illegal is corrupt intent - in other words - only certain quid pro quo actions are illegal.

 

Okay...what say ye.?

Zelensky: I wanna buy your big boy toys.

POTUS. Okay. I like that.

Zelensky: Can I have a nosh up at the Big House.

POTUS: Sure, but I want you to do me a personal favour.

Zelensky: What.

POTUS: I want you to make a public statement that Ukraine is investigating the Bidens. You don't really have to investigate, all I want is that you say publicly you will investigate.

So, anything illegal in that quid pro quo, anything impeachable?

 

Hard to say - more information required. Say you wanted to start an investigation into suspected criminal activity but - because of who the person was - if POTUS initiated the investigation it would look bad. Getting Ukraine to suggest that they are investigating is a way to do that - .. and Ukraine does not have to do much - just get the ball rolling and we do the heavy lifting from there.

 

I see you're trying to whitewash corruption on the part of Hunter and his dad.

The Hunter interview was conducted by Amy Rohrback (sic) of Good Morning America. It should still be on GMA's website, or

Google "Hunter Biden Admits Corruption on the Part of His Father"

BTW: The NYT warned Joe Biden about Ukraine's investigation of his son's position at Burisma Holdings.

 

Republicans will move the goalpost to the moon if they have to. In politics the ends justify the means and party loyalty trumps loyalty to country. Same thing applies to the Democrats.

 

Nope. And the aid was released without the statement. And the transcript doesn't even support the claim.

The quid pro quo claim is a complete non-starter, where, in essence, they are trying to criminalize the words and the foreign policy of Trump by divining his intention in order to make their case for impeachment. There is absolutely no law they can point to that he broke in his conversation with President Volodymyr Zelensky.

So are a bunch of Democrats in Trump districts going to give up their seats for a big pile of nothing that dies in the Senate?

 

Gawd, you don't see Donald leveraging US toys to get a personal political advantage, an illegal or impeachable act. Okay. I disagree, so there ya go.

 

The transcript is merely the icing on the cake. That is what you see of the duck moving across a still (enough) pond. But, what matters is what is under the water driving it all.

This is the time-line:

• August 30th: Sondland tells Ukraine military aid will likely be with-held until they announce investigations demanded by Trump.
• September 1st: Sondland confirms to US Ambassador to Ukraine Taylor that 'everything', including military aid is dependent on Zelenskiy announcing investigations into Biden and the Ukraine server conspiracy.
• September 9th: Taylor reconfirms the demand with Sondland. Congress learns of the Whistleblower complaint.
• September 10th: Adam Schiff writes to the ICIG to demand the Whistleblower complaint.
• September 11th: Trump releases the military aid.
• September 12th-13th: Taylor learns that Zelenskiy had agreed to make the public statement Trump demanded on CNN, but that it is now canceled.

Ya see, the WB schit hit the fan, the spanner in the works, putting all the plans into disarray. Within 24 hours of the WB complaint, Trump lets the aid go.

Nifty. But we all now know that there is much more than that conversation. There are duck legs furiously paddling under water.

No concern of mine. The House will have done its job if it impeaches based on what I have seen, and if the Senate fails to convict, it does so despite the weight of all the evidence I have seen.

 

To be honest I don't know the details of the case well enough to comment - What I was doing is making comment on the legal issues in play.

 

No admission

Sorry, you lose

And as far as the paycheck, trumpettes complaining about that is probably the most flaming piece of hypocrisy on the planet

 

Just a wild coincidence that the only place and the only person in the entire planet, just happens to be Ukraine and Biden

I mean there is gullible, but that's taking it to a new level

 

Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden in exchange for access to military aid. His motive. Best him in 2020. That happened. It’s reality. The question is: Is it Impeachable.. The answer: It is, if they have the votes; it’s not if they don’t.

My question is: is it immoral to use the power of the government to destroy your political opponent. If so, why? And deeper: What if your political opponent is selling info to an enemy of the nation? Still immoral?

 

You realize the investigation had already been shut down when Joe got involved, right