• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ABC obtains proof that Trump DID discuss Quid Pro Quo

Sondlund is not a diplomat. He is a political hack that bought an Ambassadorship to EU from Trump. He has about as much business being engaged in this Ukraine mess as Rudy does. Volker had slightly more of a dog in the fight as he was the special envoy to Ukraine. But the guy who knows the most and has an actual dog in the fight is the actual Ambassador to Ukraine, Taylor and that is the guy pulling the fire alarm on this charade. Oh by the way the former Ambassador that recalled was pulling the fire alarm before Taylor.

Volker already testified and stated Biden or his investigation was never included in any conversation he had with anyone in Ukraine. Schiff is being pushed to release the testimony but Schiff is pushing back because the entire hearing proved there was never a quid pro quo.

This is what you get when you start making accusations before seeing any evidence or talking with any witness. You get egg on your face.
 
2 things you would need to explain. Why did Volker immediately resign and what does Barisma have to do with the interest of the US.

Although this doesn't explain why Volker resigned it does seem to give a lot of insight to what he was dealing with - Volker Testimony Long Form | Ukraine | International Sanctions During The Ukrainian Crisis

I believe that this is a copy of his opening statement to the committees yesterday. Basically, it shows that he was focused on promoting a strong relationship with the new Ukraine government and that Trump was generally on board with that idea. It does show that Trump had serious reservations regarding how things would go in the Ukraine due to their history of corruption but it also shows he came around from that thinking.

My guess, if I were to read between the lines a bit, is that Volker's decision to resign was based at least in part on his concern that Giuliani had more of Trump's ear than he did.
 
Volker already testified and stated Biden or his investigation was never included in any conversation he had with anyone in Ukraine. Schiff is being pushed to release the testimony but Schiff is pushing back because the entire hearing proved there was never a quid pro quo.

This is what you get when you start making accusations before seeing any evidence or talking with any witness. You get egg on your face.

Volker was the special envoy. His job forced him into the ungainly position of having to forward this crap to Ukraine. He is trying to save himself now and straddling. Its easy to say, "I did not see a quid pro quo" in his position and he might even consider it necessary in order to maintain his straddle. Provide all the texts that proves at the least a chargeable offense and then claim he did not see a quid pro quo in the deal he was on the front end of acting as the end of the ramrod....sounds like a plan to me.

NONE OF WHICH MATTERS because the dems have enough to Impeach without a quid pro quo. I think they have one. But they don't need one.

Volker was cross purposes, Sondland is not a diplomat and he bought his Ambassadorship to EU from Trump. No idea what the EU Ambassador is even doing in this deal at all other than he is a Trump lap dog. UKRAINE IS NOT A MEMBER OF EU.

Taylor called it a quid pro quo and he is the Ambassador to Ukraine. Of Rudy, Sundland, Volker, Taylor, Taylor was the only one with a legitimate dog in the fight. The only other State Dept Rep with an actual dog in the fight was the former Ambassador to Ukraine. Rudy, Sundland, Volker...entirely compromised and Voker now singing. There will be others that sing.

You are talking out your butthole. What else is new.
 
Volker was the special envoy. His job forced him into the ungainly position of having to forward this crap to Ukraine. He is trying to save himself now and straddling. Its easy to say, "I did not see a quid pro quo" in his position and he might even consider it necessary in order to maintain his straddle. Provide all the texts that proves at the least a chargeable offense and then claim he did not see a quid pro quo in the deal he was on the front end of acting as the end of the ramrod....sounds like a plan to me.

NONE OF WHICH MATTERS because the dems have enough to Impeach without a quid pro quo. I think they have one. But they don't need one.

Volker was cross purposes, Sondland is not a diplomat and he bought his Ambassadorship to EU from Trump. No idea what the EU Ambassador is even doing in this deal at all other than he is a Trump lap dog. UKRAINE IS NOT A MEMBER OF EU.

Taylor called it a quid pro quo and he is the Ambassador to Ukraine. Of Rudy, Sundland, Volker, Taylor, Taylor was the only one with a legitimate dog in the fight. The only other State Dept Rep with an actual dog in the fight was the former Ambassador to Ukraine. Rudy, Sundland, Volker...entirely compromised and Voker now singing. There will be others that sing.

You are talking out your butthole. What else is new.

I haven't seen so much gear shifting since the Gator Nationals.
 
Volker already testified and stated Biden or his investigation was never included in any conversation he had with anyone in Ukraine. Schiff is being pushed to release the testimony but Schiff is pushing back because the entire hearing proved there was never a quid pro quo.

This is what you get when you start making accusations before seeing any evidence or talking with any witness. You get egg on your face.

Volker was a part time DoS employee, he was a full time lobbyist. Drain that swamp!!!!!
 
It's not a quid pro quo. Trump said so.

No quid pro quo. Just insisting on Ukraine promising to dig up dirt on the Bidens before Trump will agree to a phone call or meeting or a release of the funds he froze. No quid pro quo.



So, it's (a) Trump doesn't know the meaning of quid pro quo, which is a distinct possibility. Or it's (b) Trump thinks that him saying it's not what it is somehow covers his quid pro quo demanding ass.

His supporters are telling him that if it's (b) then he's correct -- that all he has to do is say "up is down" and that is good enough for them. From here on out, up IS down. Until the next time he tells them to instantaneously reorganize their perspective, and they'll do that too.
 
I wish that you and yer fellow "patriots" could wrap your mind around the fact that soliciting violations do NOT require quid pro quo.
First off, I made a huge error, and this is the corrected comment.
I wish that you and your fellow Dims could wrap your mind around the fact that no one was soliciting violations, hence no quid pro quo.
I have no idea how a person could read the WH released transcript and argue orange asked for nothing.
 
First off, I made a huge error, and this is the corrected comment.I have no idea how a person could read the WH released transcript and argue orange asked for nothing.

Just those who can read, and have no agenda...not like you folks.
 
Try what? I posted a full sentence, you truncated it. You try again.

Or better yet, don't.
 
'Crazy to withhold security assistance' to Ukraine for political campaign: Top US diplomat - ABC News



Let me pull that one line out so everyone can see it better - "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.

So I guess we do have proof, or at least some pretty solid evidence that Trump did, in fact discuss a quid pro quo with regard to the Ukraine. Granted, he seems to have said "NO QUID PRO QUO" but he did mention.

Gordon Sondland deposition: Diplomat says he told Ukraine that aid was conditioned on announcing investigation in new testimony - CNNPolitics

US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland amended his previous closed-door testimony with House impeachment investigators to say that he told a top Ukrainian political aide that the release of US security aid was conditioned on Ukraine publicly announcing an investigation that would help President Donald Trump politically.

Wow, who could have known that he was lying...

You may now advance to the next argument of "well there's nothing wrong with a quid pro quo".
 
'Crazy to withhold security assistance' to Ukraine for political campaign: Top US diplomat - ABC News



Let me pull that one line out so everyone can see it better - "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.

So I guess we do have proof, or at least some pretty solid evidence that Trump did, in fact discuss a quid pro quo with regard to the Ukraine. Granted, he seems to have said "NO QUID PRO QUO" but he did mention.

Did not Sondland also testify that it was Trump who told them to write that text
And that he personally did not know if there was a quid pro quo or not?
 
Gordon Sondland deposition: Diplomat says he told Ukraine that aid was conditioned on announcing investigation in new testimony - CNNPolitics



Wow, who could have known that he was lying...

You may now advance to the next argument of "well there's nothing wrong with a quid pro quo".

Did not Sondland also testify that it was Trump who told them to write that text
And that he personally did not know if there was a quid pro quo or not?

This addendum to Sondland's testimony changes absolutely nothing in regard to the disclosed telephone transcript.

Right now we have everyone opposed to Trump swearing up and down that he demanded Zelensky investigate Biden before he got the funding. Everyone else swears up and down that Trump was asking for assistance into Ukrainian corruption in general and, specifically, those acts which involved US government personnel. While there is opinion that Trump was primarily focused on Biden and 2020 there is no factual basis for that opinion. Nobody, so far, has come out and said anything to the effect of, "Trump wanted to make sure he lit up Biden". That's Schiff's interpretation of what was said and it's quite possible that others believed that was what was going on but there are TONS of people who believe that the very act of Trump sucking air is evidence of corruption and conspiracy.

Bottom line, every person associated with Ukraine that we have seen testimony from agrees that corruption was rampant in that country under Poroschenko and before. It's an entirely legitimate concern that the ubiquitous corruption would continue under Zelensky. While Vindman and Yovanovich and others may well have been encouraged by Zelensky there was, at the time of the call, zero evidence that he'd done anything other than talk about reforms. Furthermore, and as I've noted MANY times before, the stories about Biden were already in the public realm. There would be no reason for Trump to solicit "dirt" from the Ukraine as that "dirt" was already available in the US press.

This "quid pro quo" crap is entirely about promoting a Democrat narrative about Trump for the purpose of a completely partisan impeachment. The precedent Democrats are setting here is absolutely stunning in its audacity.
 
This addendum to Sondland's testimony changes absolutely nothing in regard to the disclosed telephone transcript.

Right now we have everyone opposed to Trump swearing up and down that he demanded Zelensky investigate Biden before he got the funding. Everyone else swears up and down that Trump was asking for assistance into Ukrainian corruption in general and, specifically, those acts which involved US government personnel. While there is opinion that Trump was primarily focused on Biden and 2020 there is no factual basis for that opinion. Nobody, so far, has come out and said anything to the effect of, "Trump wanted to make sure he lit up Biden". That's Schiff's interpretation of what was said and it's quite possible that others believed that was what was going on but there are TONS of people who believe that the very act of Trump sucking air is evidence of corruption and conspiracy.

Bottom line, every person associated with Ukraine that we have seen testimony from agrees that corruption was rampant in that country under Poroschenko and before. It's an entirely legitimate concern that the ubiquitous corruption would continue under Zelensky. While Vindman and Yovanovich and others may well have been encouraged by Zelensky there was, at the time of the call, zero evidence that he'd done anything other than talk about reforms. Furthermore, and as I've noted MANY times before, the stories about Biden were already in the public realm. There would be no reason for Trump to solicit "dirt" from the Ukraine as that "dirt" was already available in the US press.

This "quid pro quo" crap is entirely about promoting a Democrat narrative about Trump for the purpose of a completely partisan impeachment. The precedent Democrats are setting here is absolutely stunning in its audacity.

This thread wasn't about the telephone transcript.

You are obfuscating. There was a quid pro quo. The president and his minions extorted an ally using military aid in order to get political dirt on a political foe. That's why the president and his men have been lying about this quid pro quo this entire time. They know damn well they broke the law and abused their offices. That's why they lied. You should be ashamed for holding their water.
 
This thread wasn't about the telephone transcript.

You are obfuscating. There was a quid pro quo. The president and his minions extorted an ally using military aid in order to get political dirt on a political foe. That's why the president and his men have been lying about this quid pro quo this entire time. They know damn well they broke the law and abused their offices. That's why they lied. You should be ashamed for holding their water.

The transcript, from what I've read of it, consists primarily of personal perceptions. We know that a lot of career diplomats hated the idea that Rudy was running around and making their lives more difficult. We know that a lot of people disagreed with Trump's foreign policy. None of that makes anything Trump did or said to the Ukraine corrupt. It might make him a pain in the ass to work for but it doesn't make him corrupt.
 
The transcript, from what I've read of it, consists primarily of personal perceptions. We know that a lot of career diplomats hated the idea that Rudy was running around and making their lives more difficult. We know that a lot of people disagreed with Trump's foreign policy. None of that makes anything Trump did or said to the Ukraine corrupt. It might make him a pain in the ass to work for but it doesn't make him corrupt.

All I can do is quote myself, because you keep obfuscating from the very simple reality.

roughdraft274 said:
You are obfuscating. There was a quid pro quo. The president and his minions extorted an ally using military aid in order to get political dirt on a political foe. That's why the president and his men have been lying about this quid pro quo this entire time. They know damn well they broke the law and abused their offices. That's why they lied. You should be ashamed for holding their water.

You will continue to back step and say what you need to in order to defend trump, no matter what. You will act like it's ok for his personal attorney to take 500K from ukranian gangsters and then run around Ukraine circumventing official channels, and it's fine to extort an ally into digging up dirt on a political foe, and it's perfectly fine for the president to lie about doing this, and it's fine for them to hide the telephone transcript on a top secret server in order to try and hide it.
 
All I can do is quote myself, because you keep obfuscating from the very simple reality.



You will continue to back step and say what you need to in order to defend trump, no matter what. You will act like it's ok for his personal attorney to take 500K from ukranian gangsters and then run around Ukraine circumventing official channels, and it's fine to extort an ally into digging up dirt on a political foe, and it's perfectly fine for the president to lie about doing this, and it's fine for them to hide the telephone transcript on a top secret server in order to try and hide it.

The call transcript, I seem to recall reading, was put on the SCI system because there was chatter about exactly the conflict we're talking about now and they didn't want it leaked. The more conversations with world leaders that get leaked the less the executive is able to conduct foreign policy with the confidence of his or her counterparts. As far as Rudy and his questionable associations go, that's a completely separate matter and doesn't involve Trump.
 
This addendum to Sondland's testimony changes absolutely nothing in regard to the disclosed telephone transcript.

Right now we have everyone opposed to Trump swearing up and down that he demanded Zelensky investigate Biden before he got the funding. Everyone else swears up and down that Trump was asking for assistance into Ukrainian corruption in general and, specifically, those acts which involved US government personnel. While there is opinion that Trump was primarily focused on Biden and 2020 there is no factual basis for that opinion. Nobody, so far, has come out and said anything to the effect of, "Trump wanted to make sure he lit up Biden". That's Schiff's interpretation of what was said and it's quite possible that others believed that was what was going on but there are TONS of people who believe that the very act of Trump sucking air is evidence of corruption and conspiracy.

Bottom line, every person associated with Ukraine that we have seen testimony from agrees that corruption was rampant in that country under Poroschenko and before. It's an entirely legitimate concern that the ubiquitous corruption would continue under Zelensky. While Vindman and Yovanovich and others may well have been encouraged by Zelensky there was, at the time of the call, zero evidence that he'd done anything other than talk about reforms. Furthermore, and as I've noted MANY times before, the stories about Biden were already in the public realm. There would be no reason for Trump to solicit "dirt" from the Ukraine as that "dirt" was already available in the US press.

This "quid pro quo" crap is entirely about promoting a Democrat narrative about Trump for the purpose of a completely partisan impeachment. The precedent Democrats are setting here is absolutely stunning in its audacity.



Hardly, as the truth is neither conservative nor liberal, i.e., see my new thread on this, providing far more detail

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...cerpt-sondlands-testimony.html#post1070851788
 
The call transcript, I seem to recall reading, was put on the SCI system because there was chatter about exactly the conflict we're talking about now and they didn't want it leaked. The more conversations with world leaders that get leaked the less the executive is able to conduct foreign policy with the confidence of his or her counterparts. As far as Rudy and his questionable associations go, that's a completely separate matter and doesn't involve Trump.

Doesn't involve Trump? They are the guys that are financing the presidents personal attorney. This is exactly what I mean. You will say literally anything to defend him.
 
This addendum to Sondland's testimony changes absolutely nothing in regard to the disclosed telephone transcript.

Right now we have everyone opposed to Trump swearing up and down that he demanded Zelensky investigate Biden before he got the funding. Everyone else swears up and down that Trump was asking for assistance into Ukrainian corruption in general and, specifically, those acts which involved US government personnel. While there is opinion that Trump was primarily focused on Biden and 2020 there is no factual basis for that opinion. Nobody, so far, has come out and said anything to the effect of, "Trump wanted to make sure he lit up Biden". That's Schiff's interpretation of what was said and it's quite possible that others believed that was what was going on but there are TONS of people who believe that the very act of Trump sucking air is evidence of corruption and conspiracy.

Bottom line, every person associated with Ukraine that we have seen testimony from agrees that corruption was rampant in that country under Poroschenko and before. It's an entirely legitimate concern that the ubiquitous corruption would continue under Zelensky. While Vindman and Yovanovich and others may well have been encouraged by Zelensky there was, at the time of the call, zero evidence that he'd done anything other than talk about reforms. Furthermore, and as I've noted MANY times before, the stories about Biden were already in the public realm. There would be no reason for Trump to solicit "dirt" from the Ukraine as that "dirt" was already available in the US press.

This "quid pro quo" crap is entirely about promoting a Democrat narrative about Trump for the purpose of a completely partisan impeachment. The precedent Democrats are setting here is absolutely stunning in its audacity.

Donald Trump's ambassador to the EU CHANGES testimony on quid pro quo message | Daily Mail Online
 
Doesn't involve Trump? They are the guys that are financing the presidents personal attorney. This is exactly what I mean. You will say literally anything to defend him.

If your nephew or your child goes on a homicidal rampage and shoots up the town square does that mean that you, in some way, shape or form, should he held responsible?
 
If your nephew or your child goes on a homicidal rampage and shoots up the town square does that mean that you, in some way, shape or form, should he held responsible?

What if you hired people that all turn out to be criminals? You know, people like Ruby and the ones in prison now or on the way there... (and after claiming these are your BEST people)... should you, the President, be in some way, shape or form held responsible?
 
Back
Top Bottom