If Republicans are not ready to admit there was a quid pro quo...

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by 3link, Nov 12, 2019.

  1. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,201
    Likes Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ...then why are they trying to call witnesses to justify the quid pro quo? That is the point of calling Hunter Biden, right? To show that there was sufficient national interest in the quid pro quo. Otherwise Hunter Biden's testimony is irrelevant. If there was no quid pro quo, then we don't need to know whether it was justified. Basically, republicans are calling Hunter Biden to testify because they are desperately searching for a distraction.

    The same is true of the whistleblower. It is readily admitted that the whistleblower wasn't on the infamous Ukraine call. He learned everything second hand. So what new information do republicans think he has that will clear Trump's name? The answer: none. The fact of the matter is that the whistleblower didn't know all of the facts--nor what he required to know all of the facts when disclosing his concerns to the inspector general. In his letter, the whistleblower admitted that his knowledge was largely second-hand, but that what he had heard warranted an investigation. Republicans, in their desperation for a distraction, plan to seize on this. Basically, they want to ask the whistleblower "did you have first-hand knowledge of the events described in your letter." Obviously the whistleblower will say "no," as stated plainly in his letter. But then the republicans will scream from the hilltop "HUR DER HOW CAN TRUMP BE GUILTY IF THE WHISTLEBLOWER DIDN'T KNOW HUR DER HUR?!?!" To which everyone with an IQ above 40 will respond "because all of the evidence in the record points to quid pro quo." But by that time it won't matter because the GOP tribe just needs one fact--however irrelevant--to totally write off the impeachment inquiry.
     
    Sandy Shanks and Bowerbird like this.
  2. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    16,267
    Likes Received:
    4,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The point is to give a reason for investigating the Bidens because of a quid pro quo back when Biden was Vice President.

    After all, we do have video evidence of Joe saying that he used a billion dollars to get an investigator fired...

    At the end of the day, the worst that can be said is that Trump is as guilty as Obama.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
    ArchStanton, Ddyad and Dayton3 like this.
  3. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,201
    Likes Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The video is not evidence that Biden's quid pro quo was for personal gain. Though I welcome a separate congressional investigation into that.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  4. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    14,050
    Likes Received:
    9,499
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    the problem with 'quid pro quo' (and my suspicion as to its frequent use here) is that its a generic term for "a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something."

    'Quid pro quo' is the end goal of virtually all international politics. Nations dont talk to eachother to shoot the ****, they barter.

    The onus the impeachment committee has placed upon itself is not to show some 'quid pro quo', but to show Trump was negotiating for his personal benefit and not the nations benefit.

    Of course, those who think Biden would be a good president while Trump is a bad one will view the 'quid pro quo' to benefit Trump personally, since theres no way the nation could benefit from a corruption investigation into Biden, from their perspective.

    What they cant seem to understand is that others dont share their perspective.

    Theres quite a lot of people still capable of understanding how an investigation into what Biden said he did would benefit the entire nation, not just Trump. And that 'quid pro quo' isn't illegal, its Trump trying to do his job.

    Im not trying to convince you... Im telling you what you need to convince everyone else. Because this hole 'we got quid pro quo!' thing is insulting peoples capacity for complexity and nuance. And its getting very old.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
  5. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    16,267
    Likes Received:
    4,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ahh... personal gain. That's a new one.

    Especially considering how much his son was pulling in over the table from his dad's interference.

    See, you didn't consider that one. How many people in the Ukraine do you think are making a couple million USD in a job that requires no real work?

    Trump is investigating that, and there's no rule that says he can't ask a foreign government to help.
     
    Tim15856 likes this.
  6. Just A Man

    Just A Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    7,180
    Likes Received:
    3,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If we impeach because a president negotiated a quid pro quo we would probably have to go back to Washington and then line up all 45 presidents. Much ado about nothing. But when the dems have nothing, have tried several other issues that failed, they can't help themselves and will still keep trying as they embarrass themselves. Right on through Trump's landslide re-election. The Dems - For The People.
     
    RodB and Belch like this.
  7. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    21,280
    Likes Received:
    10,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is a fallacy. There's a difference between demanding that a country acquiesce to a request to act a certain way in return for aid (like stopping human right's abuses) and illegally demanding that a country aid the prez in the next election.

    Speaking of illegality, Laura Cooper's testimony makes it clear government officials including those in the Pentagon determined Don's hold on military aid was illegal in and of itself.
     
  8. opion8d

    opion8d Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2018
    Messages:
    5,864
    Likes Received:
    4,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Party of Trump will have ample opportunity to educate those in the public unable to understand the complexities the case. Public hearings begin tomorrow with ample opportunity for questioning the witnesses. How this investigation of Biden for a discredited conspiracy theory is unclear to me. The Dems will keep this investigation laser focused on bribery.
     
  9. Just A Man

    Just A Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    7,180
    Likes Received:
    3,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have no idea or full disclosure what the last 44 presidents negotiated, withheld, or granted. Plain old politics.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
  10. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    21,280
    Likes Received:
    10,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Continued attempts along these lines to justify Trump's illegal extortion of Ukraine will fail.
     
  11. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,447
    Likes Received:
    4,287
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If Republicans are not ready to admit there was a quid pro quo...

    There may have been. We don't know because we can't read Trump's mind. You need to prove it and justify ending a presidency because of it. None of that will happen. The left will impeach him, the Senate will acquit him and the voters will decide next year. Why are we arguing about the obvious?
     
  12. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    38,595
    Likes Received:
    8,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The quid pro quo inquestion did not involve Biden. It didn't need to. It did involve getting to the bottom of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.
     
    ArchStanton and Hotdogr like this.
  13. fullmetaljack

    fullmetaljack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,442
    Likes Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    .............AND future presidents will be able to rely on the precedents set. I can't wait to get a Democrat into the White House so he/she can use all the techniques introduced by Dirty Donnie against the Republicans.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  14. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    3,073
    Likes Received:
    2,971
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The way he worded it in the conversation with Ukraine doesn't 100% prove it was. He never said, do this or we won't do this. Here in America, crimes have to be PROVEN. not all the time, but in most instances, especially for a president. I wouldn't put all your eggs in the impeachment basket if I were you.

    Trump knows legal loopholes (he's a billionaire and they are all dirty). I don't think he's actually stupid enough to do that on the phone knowing all those people are listening. (if he is really that stupid, then by all means, impeach the shyt out of him!)

    My theory: he knows its not enough for impeachment but enough to cause a huge stir and then when it doesn't lead to impeachment they have just handed him the election "see, Russia Hoax , Ukraine hoax, All hoaxes...lets keep America great"

    God I love seeing Mr Trump play these democrats like a fiddle.

    GOOD STUFF MAN!
     
  15. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,447
    Likes Received:
    4,287
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hopefully you will get over your hatred and closed mindedness as you mature. Having a society that is constantly at war with itself is not a positive development.
     
  16. Jestsayin

    Jestsayin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    14,346
    Likes Received:
    13,088
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Note to OP,
    Everything is quid pro quo!
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  17. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    16,241
    Likes Received:
    5,982
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's a beautiful country you have there. It would be a shame if Russia took it over.
     
    Lesh likes this.
  18. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    6,610
    Likes Received:
    1,172
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Am I understanding you correctly when I infer that you are implying that Russia could take over the United States? If so, on what basis are you implying that could possibly occur? How would that happen?
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
    Ddyad likes this.
  19. Just A Man

    Just A Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    7,180
    Likes Received:
    3,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What will fail is an impeachment attempt of Trump. Fact. The democrats are blind with hatred and can't stand how he has helped the USA and also that the people want him to have another term. The dems and the MSM are fools destroying their reputations.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  20. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    18,019
    Likes Received:
    4,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Does a quid pro quo have to be for personal gain?
     
  21. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    36,781
    Likes Received:
    12,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Republicans - like any rational, reasoned person, are not ready to "admit" QPQ none of you can cite a source, and provide a quote from that source, that proves your accusation of said QPQ.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
    Ddyad likes this.
  22. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    6,610
    Likes Received:
    1,172
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice attempt at setting up a strawman. The point of calling Hunter Biden is to show that there was sufficient national interest in investigating the Biden aspect of the larger investigation involving the previous administration, which was the topic in question from the referenced phone call. A so called Quid Pro Quo is in no way a necessity in order to explore that option.

    From day one, Republicans were insisting that the whistleblower specifically was not necessary because we already had the records from the phone call itself. Democrats called him anyway, and solicited his testimony that amounted to nothing more than his opinion since as you have acknowledged, he did not have first hand knowledge of the call and clearly does not know all of the facts. Democrats saw him as very important, regardless of what you say above. By allowing him to ramble on about literally nothing other than his opinion, followed predictably by subsequent selected leaks of his opinion, the Democrats obviously were trying to sway public opinion with his opinion, and then not having his opinion being challenged by public cross examination.

    If Democrats had followed your basic logic and treated the whistleblower as irrelevant due to his lack of first hand knowledge and, and not called him to testify, Republicans would have no need to cross examine him publically. Since Democrats did however allow him to express his opinions, it is only fair for Republicans to be allowed to cross examine him and ascertain his perspective in forming that opinion. In the sense that his testimony is only about his opinion, his prior political leanings are highly relevant.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
    Ddyad likes this.
  23. opion8d

    opion8d Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2018
    Messages:
    5,864
    Likes Received:
    4,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not really what this is all about, is it. Your opinion that the House will impeach and the Senate will acquit is probably true. So what are the Democrats about in pursuit of what appears to be a hopeless cause? Two things:
    1, President Trump committed an act of bribery which is a high crime. He should be impeached and removed.
    2. The Democrats are bringing Trump to the court of public opinion.

    The probability of #1 doesn't seem to be attainable unless public opinion takes a major shift. That brings us to #2. Democrats believe that when presented with evidence of criminal behavior from witnesses of impeccable service and character, public opinion will shift. How much it will shift is a riveting question. If the public and Senate are far out of alignment, the Senate has a problem. Convict and lose the base, acquit and lose 2020.

    Public opinion can fall anywhere between boredom and outrage. Construct a sliding scale if you wish. This is what to watch.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  24. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    36,781
    Likes Received:
    12,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Supposedly. No one has cited a source and quoted text from that source proving this to be true.
    Odd that they would do this in a venue that allows him to fight back.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  25. opion8d

    opion8d Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2018
    Messages:
    5,864
    Likes Received:
    4,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually "day one" was when the whistleblower submitted his concerns to the proper authority. That authority labeled the information "credible and urgent." Far from "rambling on about his opinion" the whistleblower went silent and investigators immediately took over. There was smoke and they discovered fire. By then, the whistleblower was totally irrelevant. Who gives a damn about his/her perspective? That's not his/her job. That's the job of the House and Senate. Republicans talk as though the whistleblower is driving this thing. Good lord, do we look that dumb?

    Any "opinion" went out the window when fact finding took over. What is to be gained by interrogating the whistleblower? His/her observation was valid. You expect him/her to recant, now that it has been verified by a dozen sources some of whom were on the call? The Republican whining about the absolute necessity of cross examining the whistleblower is just more elephant dung attempts at deflection. It is merely a way to satisfy their insatiable lust to bully someone and it ain't going to happen.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.

Share This Page