- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,344
- Reaction score
- 82,729
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
11/6/19
Newly released testimony in the House impeachment inquiry shows in new detail how the Trump administration’s demands for a quid pro quo from the Ukrainian government operated. Ambassador Gordon Sondland, in an addendum to his original testimony released alongside his deposition transcript today, acknowledges telling a Ukrainian official that the country wouldn’t receive U.S. military aid without a statement about public corruption from President Volodymyr Zelensky. And other testimony and communications show that the statement had to specifically mention President Donald Trump’s personal political obsessions. “I now recall speaking with Mr. [Andrey] Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland said in his update, referring to an aide to the Ukrainian president. “Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself.” While Republicans initially defended Trump by insisting he had never tried to extract a quid pro quo from Ukraine, that defense has become untenable as a mountain of evidence, as well as an ill-advised outburst of honesty from the White House chief of staff, shows it has no basis. Now Trump’s defenders have adopted a new talking point: It was a quid pro quo, but not a corrupt quid pro quo.
Among the documents released today is a set of text messages between American and Ukrainian officials, discussing a statement that Ukrainian officials understood was essential to getting the administration to agree to a White House meeting. But that wasn’t enough for the Americans. Rudy Giuliani, Volker and Sondland both testified, insisted that any Ukrainian statement mention two specific things;
When Trump brought these ideas up on the July 25 call, it set off alarm bells at the White House. Yet even as the White House scrambled to cover up the call, Trump-administration officials in the field, like Volker and Sondland, continued to understand that the Burisma and hacking mentions were essential to the president. The Ukrainians tried to satisfy the Trump administration with a general anti-corruption statement, and Volker—whether approving of Trump’s desires or not—made clear that was not enough. The demolition of the binary between the good and the corrupt quid pro quo poses the latest political challenge to Trump and his defenders. The president has argued that everything he did was totally appropriate. Republicans in Congress have been slouching toward a compromise position, arguing that what Trump did was bad, but not impeachable. The testimony released today makes that argument even less appetizing than it already was—though it may still taste better than the alternatives.
- Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States, especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections, which in turn will prevent a recurrence of this problem in the future.
It Was a Corrupt Quid Pro Quo
Not only did the president hold up aid to Ukraine; he made its release contingent on a statement advancing his own political interests.
Despite what the Republicans are now trying to peddle - It was a quid pro quo, but not a corrupt quid pro quo - I believe the corrupt intent was so transparent that Americans will have no doubts that it was indeed an illegal shakedown.
I believe the Republicans - and Donald Trump - will rue their insistence of public/televised House hearings.
What is it about requiring a historically corrupt nation, one with evidence of ties to corruption involving US politice and one with a brand new president, to acknowledge that corruption and vow to investigate it for the purpose of insuring that it doesn’t continue, that creates a corrupt quid pro quo?
:yawn:
The purpose was to get dirt on a possible opponent which would help Trump in how own election campaign. And that is illegal.
That'd be one thing.What is it about requiring a historically corrupt nation, one with evidence of ties to corruption involving US politice and one with a brand new president, to acknowledge that corruption and vow to investigate it for the purpose of insuring that it doesn’t continue, that creates a corrupt quid pro quo?
And Trump_DoJ is all over the years old evidence like stink on ****, yes?Biden provided his own dirt. He announced his quid pro quo publicly. He's repeatedly lied since saying he didn't talk to his son about Burisma. Hunter Biden said exactly the opposite. But hey, let's get after Trump for wanting to look into Dem muckraking in Ukraine in 2016. Heaven forbid that would be exposed. However, after the IG and Durham reports, it hopefully will all be exposed.
The purpose was to get dirt on a possible opponent which would help Trump in how own election campaign. And that is illegal.
First, as your average third-grader could tell you, but your average GOP senator could not, this was cheating. And cheating is wrong.
Second, this was cheating in a presidential election. ...Trump’s actions were an assault on the assumption of electoral fairness that lends legitimacy to democracy.
Third, this was cheating in a presidential election using public money as leverage. Trump was effectively employing $400 million in taxpayer money as his own corruption slush fund.
Fourth, this was cheating in a presidential election using public money as leverage to subcontract actions that would have caused a political crisis at home. .... So Trump contrived to outsource his Putin-like attack on U.S. democracy.
Fifth, this was cheating in a presidential election using public money as leverage to subcontract corrupt actions in ways that could have compromised the security of a friendly country resisting Russian aggression. And this could have materially undermined U.S. security in the region.
And Trump_DoJ is all over the years old evidence like stink on ****, yes?
Trump_DoJ probably has dozens of investigators working dozens of investigations into the Bidens.
Though, there's no need really.
All the evidence Trump_DoJ needs is publicly available and has been for years.
So, just any second now, Trump_DoJ is going to start handing out indictments to the Bidens over this stuff.
Yessiree.
...
...
...
...any second now...
The purpose was to get dirt on a possible opponent which would help Trump in how own election campaign. And that is illegal.
It's extortion using congressionally appropriated military aid.
I don't recall reading that in the transcript. I do recall the president asking the leader to look into corruption. I guess if that corruption involves a democrat we cannot look into it. WOW.
Sort of like when the Dems threatened Ukraine over aid if they didn't play ball with Mueller.
This was an attempt at bribery and extortion and must be met with the severest possible punishment of both crimes. Trump should spare himself and his adopted party by resigning today.
#Butsomethingelselooksquirrel
Is there a term for people who support a criminal and adulterer who doesn't pay his his bills and cheats charities?
I can understand when you don't like your hypocrisy exposed. ALL the things the left accuses Trump of; collusion, obstruction, quid pro quo, have been done by the Dems in spades. But hey, nothing to see...move along.
What is it about requiring a historically corrupt nation, one with evidence of ties to corruption involving US politice and one with a brand new president, to acknowledge that corruption and vow to investigate it for the purpose of insuring that it doesn’t continue, that creates a corrupt quid pro quo?
Not only did Joe Biden hold up aid to Ukraine, he made it contingent on an action advancing his son's interest.
And that is 100% untrue.
You have to realize that only the truly delusional believe that **** anymore....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?