U.S. diplomat acknowledges there was a quid pro quo arrangement

[Napoleon]

What kind of corrupt quid pro quo did Obama do?

Let me help you with that: none whatsoever.

There are different gradations of corruption. The Obama Administration’s activities/quid pro quo with Iran was not above board and they lied to Congress about it. It wasn’t self-serving, but it’s still a form of corruption.

 

[Napoleon]

Sondland changed his story, he's compromised and discredited. Besides Volker contradicts him.

Sent from Hillary's private email server.

That only means Volker has a big problem. He testified that there could not have been a quid pro quo because Ukraine was unaware that aid was being withheld. Several witnesses, now joined by Sondland, have testified that not only did the Ukrainians know about it but had confronted diplomats and the VP about it.

 

[Exactice]

US diplomat acknowledges what Democrats call a quid pro quo

WASHINGTON (AP) — “I now do recall.”

With that stunning reversal, diplomat Gordon Sondland handed House impeachment investigators another key piece of corroborating testimony Tuesday. He acknowledged what Democrats contend was a clear quid pro quo, pushed by President Donald Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, with Ukraine.

Sondland, in an addendum to his sworn earlier testimony, said that military assistance to the East European ally was being withheld until Ukraine’s new president agreed to release a statement about fighting corruption as Trump wanted. Sondland said he was the one who carried the message to a Ukrainian official on the sidelines of a conference in Warsaw with Vice President Mike Pence.
==========================================
Another piece of Trumpian excrement.

If I might ask a question. Here is the highlight I am quoting


"I now recall speaking individually with Mr. 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. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly."


Please justify, to which a "Public statement of Anti-Corruption" by Ukraine would be the edifier or Trump's abuse of power and benefiting.

The hold on the aid through this statement does NOT illicit an investigation. Does NOT name a specific corrupt act but just of generalized corruption. This statement edifies that Trump which has been consistent on US money going out to corrupt entities. Puerto Rico, Nato and now Ukraine.

The corrected statement does NOT implicate a quid pro quo of action. It demands the Ukraine Government publicly denounce corruption. How else do you read it?

 

[Phys251]

Obama quid pro quo - good.

Trump quid pro quo - bad.

Hypocrites.

 

[upsideguy]

Obama quid pro quo - good.

Trump quid pro quo - bad.

Hypocrites.

Too much is being made of the term "quid pro quo", which is simply this for that. This for that is fundamental economics.

What Trump did, however, was offer a "this" that belonged to the Ukraine (approved funds) for a "that" for which is re-election campaign was the primary beneficiary. In essence, he used government funds for his own personal benefit. Obama did no such thing.

Trump used the power of his office in an attempt to bribe a foreign government to perform a service for which is campaign was the primary beneficiary. Trump, the person, attempted to extort the Ukraine through the power of the office of POTUS.

BTW. The mere solicitation of help from a foreign government for a US election campaign is a crime, whether or not there was a quo OR the other side actually delivered.

You really need to learn to keep up. I can see all of this is confusing to you. My suggestion.... get your news from real news sources.

 

[Mycroft]

Post the link. Lets see the context of this quote/incident.

I suspect it's a lot like Obama's, "You didn't build that!"

Which is, by the way, the most egregious scandal Obama was ever complicit in.

Context? LOL!! You don't care about context. You make up your own context.

 

[Mycroft]

I think the point that keeps being ignored is the difference between "if you want a billion dollars, do something for my country" vs. "If you want a billion dollars, do something for me". Quid pro quo as it relates to a nation's policy agendas is very different than using that tactic for personal gain.

That is true.

 

[Mycroft]

Weirdly, and this is going to blow your mind, facts matter!

Just for example, a quid pro quo murder for hire is different than a quid pro quo house purchase using your local realtors! Shocking but true! Do you not know what quid pro quo means or are you just pretending not to know?

I do know what quid pro quo means and I do know that facts matter.

What I won't do is make up my own facts...such as "He did it to influence the 2020 election."

 

[Cardinal]

There are different gradations of corruption. The Obama Administration’s activities/quid pro quo with Iran was not above board and they lied to Congress about it. It wasn’t self-serving, but it’s still a form of corruption.

Every single word of your post is pure, anadulterated made-up bull****.

 

[JasperL]

I do know what quid pro quo means and I do know that facts matter.

What I won't do is make up my own facts...such as "He did it to influence the 2020 election."

So the false equivalence exercise was deliberate, and you knew it was dishonest! :thumbs:

 

[CaughtInThe]

In before "quid pro quo is not illegal." That will be the next line of defense coming from Trump's sympathetic media arm.

Yup

These are horrible people that support Donald Trump. Like gang members in Chicago or something.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Context? LOL!! You don't care about context. You make up your own context.

So I'm guessing the context is unfavorable to your example, otherwise you'd have posted the link by now.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Obama quid pro quo - good.

Trump quid pro quo - bad.

Hypocrites.

The quid pro quo isn't the issue. Only the quo

 

[Napoleon]

Every single word of your post is pure, anadulterated made-up bull****.

Except that it isn’t.

 

[CaughtInThe]

When did Obama engage in quid pro quo?

Send a tweet to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I'm sure they have the goods.

Or they've been lying for decades.

 

[JasperL]

If I might ask a question. Here is the highlight I am quoting


"I now recall speaking individually with Mr. 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. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly."


Please justify, to which a "Public statement of Anti-Corruption" by Ukraine would be the edifier or Trump's abuse of power and benefiting.

The hold on the aid through this statement does NOT illicit an investigation. Does NOT name a specific corrupt act but just of generalized corruption. This statement edifies that Trump which has been consistent on US money going out to corrupt entities. Puerto Rico, Nato and now Ukraine.

The corrected statement does NOT implicate a quid pro quo of action. It demands the Ukraine Government publicly denounce corruption. How else do you read it?

It's Sondland using weasel words. We know from the texts that surround this testimony exactly what was required, and it was Z's announcement of investigations into Burisma/Bidens and the mythical server. The required statement, the "quo" was never a generalized nothing statement about denouncing corruption. Z would have agreed to that in 5 seconds, he ran on it, it was why he was elected. He balked at the SPECIFICS required because he rightly knew it would thrust him and Ukraine right in the middle of U.S. election politics.

 

[Exactice]

It's Sondland using weasel words. We know from the texts that surround this testimony exactly what was required, and it was Z's announcement of investigations into Burisma/Bidens and the mythical server. The required statement, the "quo" was never a generalized nothing statement about denouncing corruption. Z would have agreed to that in 5 seconds, he ran on it, it was why he was elected. He balked at the SPECIFICS required because he rightly knew it would thrust him and Ukraine right in the middle of U.S. election politics.

Z's I am assuming this is President Zylenski? "announcement of investigations into Burisma/Bidens and the mythical server" there was NO announcement of that. Thats not fair to put in your own words.


1) There is an AUDIT of all investigations in regards to corruption. AUDIT not a restarting or an on going investigation just an AUDIT. lets be clear
2) Sonland's revised testimony Specifies "a political Anti-corruption statement" tied to the Aid. NOTHING More.... lets be clear about that.


3) I agree Z balked as he did NOT want to be in the political spot light. But with that we are even fortunate enough to be previewed to the Transcripts. Which are hardly if EVER released. (Of course only leaked by the opposition with is illegal to say the least)
3) Z did not though feel that he was pressured coerced or extorted, this was implied by those that oppose Trump.... If it is that simple why has NO Ukraine testified to being a part of a QPQ or extortion to say the least?


This is a one party one sided accusation unrelated to the 2 entities participating.... Trump and Ukraine to which Ukraine as a whole is not testify to acknowledge any of the currently interviewed supposed claims.... Why not just one Ukraine stand up and agree to it?

 

[Cardinal]

Except that it isn’t.

"An investigation by Senate Republicans..."

 

[Napoleon]

"An investigation by Senate Republicans..."

Yes, one which yielded findings acknowledged by administration officials. The only thing that stopped them was that they couldn’t find a US bank willing to violate sanctions on the DL.

 

[Cardinal]

Yes, one which yielded findings acknowledged by administration officials.

No they didn't. And even if it was true (and it's not), you're stretching the definition of the word "corruption" past its breaking point out of a need to believe a false equivalence.

 

[JasperL]

Z's I am assuming this is President Zylenski? "announcement of investigations into Burisma/Bidens and the mythical server" there was NO announcement of that. Thats not fair to put in your own words.

1) There is an AUDIT of all investigations in regards to corruption. AUDIT not a restarting or an on going investigation just an AUDIT. lets be clear
2) Sonland's revised testimony Specifies "a political Anti-corruption statement" tied to the Aid. NOTHING More.... lets be clear about that.

Again, we know from the texts and direct testimony what that statement had to be, and it was specific - Biden/Burisma and server.

3) I agree Z balked as he did NOT want to be in the political spot light. But with that we are even fortunate enough to be previewed to the Transcripts. Which are hardly if EVER released. (Of course only leaked by the opposition with is illegal to say the least)

Not sure what transcripts you're talking about, but Trump released the wb complaint and the phone not-transcript, and there is nothing illegal about releasing transcripts of closed door congressional hearings. It's up to the committee what and when to release.

3) Z did not though feel that he was pressured coerced or extorted, this was implied by those that oppose Trump.... If it is that simple why has NO Ukraine testified to being a part of a QPQ or extortion to say the least?

We know he was pressured. Several have testified to the pressure - no statement no aid. They were told this according to Sondland, Taylor. The $400 million is critical to their national security. It's impossible to believe the threat of no aid wasn't pressure, and lots of it.

This is a one party one sided accusation unrelated to the 2 entities participating.... Trump and Ukraine to which Ukraine as a whole is not testify to acknowledge any of the currently interviewed supposed claims.... Why not just one Ukraine stand up and agree to it?

As best I can tell, you're arguing the foreign policy team went rogue on Trump and did all this they acknowledge without Trump's approval. The phone call tells us otherwise. "I'd like for you to do us a favor, though..."

And it's not fair to Ukraine to put them under oath, even if we could subpoena them and force the testimony, which I'm sure we cannot. It puts them for or against Trump, aka POTUS, and for better or worse POTUS controls the purse strings, military aid, U.S. support in general to Ukraine for at least the next year and possibly the next five years.

 

[Mycroft]

for a "that" for which is re-election campaign was the primary beneficiary.

Sorry, but when you continue to tell a lie, you immediately get dismissed.

You are dismissed.

 

[Napoleon]

No they didn't. And even if it was true (and it's not), you're stretching the definition of the word "corruption" past its breaking point out of a need to believe a false equivalence.

Read the article. Calling perjury, the secret issuance of a license to access the US financial system, and the solicitation of banks to violate US sanctions corruption is not a stretch.

 

[Mycroft]

So the false equivalence exercise was deliberate, and you knew it was dishonest! :thumbs:

It wasn't a false equivalence. It was an illustration of hypocrisy. And yes, it was deliberate, honest and truthful.

 

[Mycroft]

So I'm guessing the context is unfavorable to your example, otherwise you'd have posted the link by now.

You are guessing wrong.