Zero, a few hundred million, same ballpark I guess.

quash said:

---

Zero, a few hundred million, same ballpark I guess.

---

Spent, not spent, same ballpark I guess.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Zero, a few hundred million, same ballpark I guess.

---

Spent, not spent, same ballpark I guess.

---

Benefit, Sam.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

There's an election in just over 13 months. Remove Trump that way if you can. You may think Trump is dangerous, but this consistent steam of political witch-hunting is what will have the greatest long term damage.

---

Witches don't exist. See the difference?

---

They were "trumped up" accusations of suspect origins. Sounds familiar.

---

Rule of law under our Constitution convicted people who got due process. That is not a witch hunt. No matter how many dozens of times it gets retweeted.

---

But is it normal to look for a crime for years and years and years, demanding indictment without evidence?

---

33 Benghazi hearings. You tell me.

---

People died. Massive cover up.

But I don't remember people yelling IMPEACHMENT.

---

Because those hearings produced no evidence of an impeachable offense. Let's see what happens here.

---

Nor did the WB...yet here we are.

---

We don't know that yet. Let's have the hearings.

---

Not to set the bar too high, but to justify hearings I think an impeachable offense at least needs to be alleged. So far it hasn't been.

---

Campaign finance violations. You don't see it, I do, that's a horse race. Run it. And then there's the 10 acts of obstruction of justice, etc.

---

Strike two

The statute on campaign finance violations says nothing about asking a foreign leader to investigate suspected violations of both Ukrainian and US law.

---

Oh, well as long as you invent novel says to aid your campaign then no crime.

Sheesh, TDS.

---

You've gone gibberish you know, quash.

But if you were trying to say what it seems you meant, check the statute. There is nothing in that phone call which constitutes a violation of campaign finance law.

'Hate Orange Man' does not constitute grounds for anything but sessions for you with a therapist.

---

Using public funds to aid a campaign. Gotta be in here somewhere...

---

That call was about the 2016 campaign, made three years after. Kind of silly to claim Trump is using 'public funds' when he asks Ukraine to look into something they were already investigating.

quash said:

---

Corrected the typo, somehow, it was hard to figure out what that mess was supposed to have said.

Link the campaign finance law you seem to be referring to. Gotta be in there somewhere...

---

How about you do so. After all, you're the one claiming there is a violation.

Gotta love the liberal media

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Zero, a few hundred million, same ballpark I guess.

---

Spent, not spent, same ballpark I guess.

---

Benefit, Sam.

---

What does that mean? You're either spending money on a campaign or you're not. Everything the president does costs money, and it all benefits his campaign to the extent it keeps him in the public eye and gets his message out. If you're saying it's illegal for the president to "benefit" in some inchoate way from the expenditure (or non-expenditure) of public funds, cite the law.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Corrected the typo, somehow, it was hard to figure out what that mess was supposed to have said.

Link the campaign finance law you seem to be referring to. Gotta be in there somewhere...

---

How about you do so. After all, you're the one claiming there is a violation.

---

There he goes again, shifting the burden of proof.

I never brought up the campaign finance law, you did, pretending like you were familiar with it.

We'll just have to discuss this without reference to the law I guess.

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

That was also after Giuliani publicly said he was going to Ukraine to "meddle".

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

That was also after Giuliani publicly said he was going to Ukraine to "meddle".

---

Our government authorized it.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

That was also after Giuliani publicly said he was going to Ukraine to "meddle".

---

Our government authorized it.

---

Rudy says so. We'll see. But the point is that Schiff had Rudy's comments to go on.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

That was also after Giuliani publicly said he was going to Ukraine to "meddle".

---

Our government authorized it.

---

Rudy says so. We'll see. But the point is that Schiff had Rudy's comments to go on.

---

I think it's pretty obvious Schiff set this up.

Hell even Pelosi said on 60 Minutes last night that she knew the details of the classified Ukraine call before the White House released the transcript.

Booray said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Secondhand does not equal a leak.

---

Simple logic says yes because firsthand wasn't authorized to talk.

---

This is so dumb on its face. Linda Tripp was second-hand, too.

It doesn't matter what the whistleblower saw, it matters if it's true.

---

And in the Trump's WB case, the WB's details have been proven false in light of published transcripts.

---

What? What has been "proven false?"

There was quid pro quo. There were hidden transcripts. What has been proven false?

---

There was no quid pro quo. The transcript shows this.

The transcript was treated exactly the same way Obama handled his communications with foreign leaders. Again, nothing wrong with that.

What has been proven false, is you.

---

The transcript when read in context and understanding nuance does not prove or disprove a quid pro quo. It certainly suggest one to anyone who is not willfully ignorant.

But the point that the President's worshipers fails to grasp about the danger the inquiry presents is that there are lines of investigation that the transcript opens up. For the uninitiated this is how it works:

Head of State calls do not happen on a whim. The President and his national security team talk about the call before and afterwards. Those discussions or briefings include country and region specific experts in the administration. The National Security Adviser is almost always present or listening to the call. The Secretary of State has the option to listen or be present. The calls are not recorded-that practice stopped after the revelation of the Nixon tapes. Instead there are two or three note takers who act as "court reporters" for the call. After the call is over, these not takers produce a memo about the call. The "transcript" the White House produced is the memo from the July 25th call.

Call memos that do not involve national security matters are electronically stored on a server. Call memos that do involve national security matters are stored on a different server that is much more secure and is accessible to far fewer people.

Following the call the National Security team will direct actions consistent with the President's desires following the call.

Many have noted that this head of state call was stored on the more secure "national security matters" server despite the fact no national security matters were discussed. The President's worshipers counter (correctly) that this one not the first time that happened. The practice started after the substance of calls with the presidents of Mexico and Austria were leaked and turned out to be embarrassing to the President. In the Mexico call the President admitted that he never was serious when he said Mexico would pay for the wall. Don't remember the problem with the Austria call. But not all Head of State calls are moved to the secure server. So the first point is that someone around the president made the decision that there was something about the call that was potentially politically damaging.

The second point is that the briefings before the call and the directions after the call may involve something more explicit than the transcript itself. Interestingly, John Bolton might be a key player. Given the way his tenure as NSA ended, I am not sure that the President can count on Bolton to take one for the team. Another key player could be the Ukraine specialist diplomat who resigned as all this became public. That guy was brought on by Rex Tillerson and is though to be loyal to him. Again, not sure that is who the President wants keeping his secrets.

Maybe there is nothing else there or maybe the President can sweep it under the rug. But this is not as simple as just reading the transcript and trying to say what it means.

---

And what those with TDS fail to realize is that there's no quid pro quo despite what you want to read into it. Even if there was, it doesn't matter because there's a treaty in place for cooperation on law enforcement matters.

---

O ntop of the fact that "quid pro quo" does not have to be explicit, the point of my post was that there may be other evidence of "quid pro quo." You missed that, its hard to see how.

I haven't read the treaty but I seriously doubt it obligates the Ukraine to investigate matters that we are not ourselves investigating; I would also guess that there is procedure to be followed that is separate from a Presidential request.

---

Again, you are unable to demonstrate a quid pro quo then say there "may be other evidence". Your emotions are trying to assume words and actions that just aren't there as was the WB using second hand information now proven false.

As to the treaty with Ukraine, it was signed by Bill Clinton and includes mutual cooperation in law enforcement matters.

---

Ok, you tell me. What would sufficient evidence of "quid pro quo" be?

On the treaty, I know who it was signed by and its general subject matter. Apparently that is all you know also. International law enforcement treaties are not simple handshakes on the concept of "we will help you if you help us." The treaties define in what situations they apply and what procedures will be used to invoke the treaty. Nothing like that happened here.

---

For a quid pro quo, you gotta have a will/won't do for a will/won't do.

For the treaty, I've included a link below. There's more, but this is a summary from Clinton's letter...."The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in order to counter criminal activities more effectively. The Treaty should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution of a wide variety of crimes, including drug trafficking offenses. The Treaty is self-executing. It provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state."

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

---

I know what quid pro quo is. The question is what type of evidence would be necessary to convince you that the President attempted to extract a quid pro quo: release of funds for investigation of Biden?

Yes that is great description of the treaty and yes, we all know it was signed by Clinton. And your link demonstrates exactly what I said. There are procedures to be followed. The very first procedure is that requests for cooperation come from the attorney general. (Article 2) Did that happen here? The next procedure is that the receiving country has the right to deny the request if it is for the investigation of a "political offense" or if the request is not properly made. (Article 4). I only had to read that far to establish that this was not a request for assistance under the treaty. If I read the rest of it I could give you 10 more reasons.

---

As to the treaty, neither you nor I know if the procedures are being followed. What we do know is that this goes to US Attorney John Durham's investigation. We'll see.

Who knew we were so worried about quid pro quo politics, when our entire political system has evolved into a quid pro quo system. I guess Trump was worthy of this new level of transparency and accountability we seemed to ignore for decades.

Interesting sidebar, Clinton Foundation donations fell almost 60% the year after the election, and the Clinton Global Initiative was shuttered. No more quo to be given for the quid provided I suppose.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Corrected the typo, somehow, it was hard to figure out what that mess was supposed to have said.

Link the campaign finance law you seem to be referring to. Gotta be in there somewhere...

---

How about you do so. After all, you're the one claiming there is a violation.

---

There he goes again, shifting the burden of proof.

I never brought up the campaign finance law, you did, pretending like you were familiar with it.

We'll just have to discuss this without reference to the law I guess.

---

{ chuckle }

I'm not the one making accusations, and we both know you won't find support for your claims in the actual statute.

But flail away if you wish, you do a fine panic dance, quash.

riflebear said:

---

Gotta love the liberal media

---

The Wall Street Journal, hardly liberal media, is reporting that Pompeo took part in the phone call: News Alert


Pompeo Took Part in Trump-Zelensky Phone Call, Official Says
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was among administration officials who listened in on the July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a senior State Department official said Monday, a disclosure that ties the State Department more closely to an ongoing congressional inquiry.
Separately, House committees subpoenaed Rudy Giuliani for documents related to Ukraine.
See More Coverage

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Corrected the typo, somehow, it was hard to figure out what that mess was supposed to have said.

Link the campaign finance law you seem to be referring to. Gotta be in there somewhere...

---

How about you do so. After all, you're the one claiming there is a violation.

---

There he goes again, shifting the burden of proof.

I never brought up the campaign finance law, you did, pretending like you were familiar with it.

We'll just have to discuss this without reference to the law I guess.

---

{ chuckle }

I'm not the one making accusations, and we both know you won't find support for your claims in the actual statute.

But flail away if you wish, you do a fine panic dance, quash.

---

How do you know I'm flailing? You haven't shown any law that contradicts what I said.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Secondhand does not equal a leak.

---

Simple logic says yes because firsthand wasn't authorized to talk.

---

This is so dumb on its face. Linda Tripp was second-hand, too.

It doesn't matter what the whistleblower saw, it matters if it's true.

---

And in the Trump's WB case, the WB's details have been proven false in light of published transcripts.

---

What? What has been "proven false?"

There was quid pro quo. There were hidden transcripts. What has been proven false?

---

There was no quid pro quo. The transcript shows this.

The transcript was treated exactly the same way Obama handled his communications with foreign leaders. Again, nothing wrong with that.

What has been proven false, is you.

---

The transcript when read in context and understanding nuance does not prove or disprove a quid pro quo. It certainly suggest one to anyone who is not willfully ignorant.

But the point that the President's worshipers fails to grasp about the danger the inquiry presents is that there are lines of investigation that the transcript opens up. For the uninitiated this is how it works:

Head of State calls do not happen on a whim. The President and his national security team talk about the call before and afterwards. Those discussions or briefings include country and region specific experts in the administration. The National Security Adviser is almost always present or listening to the call. The Secretary of State has the option to listen or be present. The calls are not recorded-that practice stopped after the revelation of the Nixon tapes. Instead there are two or three note takers who act as "court reporters" for the call. After the call is over, these not takers produce a memo about the call. The "transcript" the White House produced is the memo from the July 25th call.

Call memos that do not involve national security matters are electronically stored on a server. Call memos that do involve national security matters are stored on a different server that is much more secure and is accessible to far fewer people.

Following the call the National Security team will direct actions consistent with the President's desires following the call.

Many have noted that this head of state call was stored on the more secure "national security matters" server despite the fact no national security matters were discussed. The President's worshipers counter (correctly) that this one not the first time that happened. The practice started after the substance of calls with the presidents of Mexico and Austria were leaked and turned out to be embarrassing to the President. In the Mexico call the President admitted that he never was serious when he said Mexico would pay for the wall. Don't remember the problem with the Austria call. But not all Head of State calls are moved to the secure server. So the first point is that someone around the president made the decision that there was something about the call that was potentially politically damaging.

The second point is that the briefings before the call and the directions after the call may involve something more explicit than the transcript itself. Interestingly, John Bolton might be a key player. Given the way his tenure as NSA ended, I am not sure that the President can count on Bolton to take one for the team. Another key player could be the Ukraine specialist diplomat who resigned as all this became public. That guy was brought on by Rex Tillerson and is though to be loyal to him. Again, not sure that is who the President wants keeping his secrets.

Maybe there is nothing else there or maybe the President can sweep it under the rug. But this is not as simple as just reading the transcript and trying to say what it means.

---

And what those with TDS fail to realize is that there's no quid pro quo despite what you want to read into it. Even if there was, it doesn't matter because there's a treaty in place for cooperation on law enforcement matters.

---

O ntop of the fact that "quid pro quo" does not have to be explicit, the point of my post was that there may be other evidence of "quid pro quo." You missed that, its hard to see how.

I haven't read the treaty but I seriously doubt it obligates the Ukraine to investigate matters that we are not ourselves investigating; I would also guess that there is procedure to be followed that is separate from a Presidential request.

---

Again, you are unable to demonstrate a quid pro quo then say there "may be other evidence". Your emotions are trying to assume words and actions that just aren't there as was the WB using second hand information now proven false.

As to the treaty with Ukraine, it was signed by Bill Clinton and includes mutual cooperation in law enforcement matters.

---

Ok, you tell me. What would sufficient evidence of "quid pro quo" be?

On the treaty, I know who it was signed by and its general subject matter. Apparently that is all you know also. International law enforcement treaties are not simple handshakes on the concept of "we will help you if you help us." The treaties define in what situations they apply and what procedures will be used to invoke the treaty. Nothing like that happened here.

---

For a quid pro quo, you gotta have a will/won't do for a will/won't do.

For the treaty, I've included a link below. There's more, but this is a summary from Clinton's letter...."The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in order to counter criminal activities more effectively. The Treaty should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution of a wide variety of crimes, including drug trafficking offenses. The Treaty is self-executing. It provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state."

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

---

I know what quid pro quo is. The question is what type of evidence would be necessary to convince you that the President attempted to extract a quid pro quo: release of funds for investigation of Biden?

Yes that is great description of the treaty and yes, we all know it was signed by Clinton. And your link demonstrates exactly what I said. There are procedures to be followed. The very first procedure is that requests for cooperation come from the attorney general. (Article 2) Did that happen here? The next procedure is that the receiving country has the right to deny the request if it is for the investigation of a "political offense" or if the request is not properly made. (Article 4). I only had to read that far to establish that this was not a request for assistance under the treaty. If I read the rest of it I could give you 10 more reasons.

---

As to the treaty, neither you nor I know if the procedures are being followed. What we do know is that this goes to US Attorney John Durham's investigation. We'll see.

---

You were the one who was using the treaty to say its ok that President Trump was asking for Ukraine law enforcement assistance. Now you say you do not know if the treaty has been invoked. (It clearly has not). Which is it? Does the treaty cover Trump's request or doesn't it?

If you don't know, how can you say the treaty is relevant to any of this?

"The United States has been very, good to Ukraine. Do me a favor....". Trump's words indict him.

Waco1947 said:

---

"The United States has been very, good to Ukraine. Do me a favor....". Trump's words indict him.

---

His words do indict him...for the crime of being president. That's what it's always been about.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"The United States has been very, good to Ukraine. Do me a favor....". Trump's words indict him.

---

His words do indict him...for the crime of being president. That's what it's always been about.

---

He's violated the Constitution

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"The United States has been very, good to Ukraine. Do me a favor....". Trump's words indict him.

---

His words do indict him...for the crime of being president. That's what it's always been about.

---

He's violated the Constitution

---

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. How'd he do that?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"The United States has been very, good to Ukraine. Do me a favor....". Trump's words indict him.

---

His words do indict him...for the crime of being president. That's what it's always been about.

---

He's violated the Constitution

---

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. How'd he do that?

---

He won the 2016 election for president by beating Hillary Clinton?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"The United States has been very, good to Ukraine. Do me a favor....". Trump's words indict him.

---

His words do indict him...for the crime of being president. That's what it's always been about.

---

He's violated the Constitution

---

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. How'd he do that?

---

Federalist Papers #68
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"The United States has been very, good to Ukraine. Do me a favor....". Trump's words indict him.

---

His words do indict him...for the crime of being president. That's what it's always been about.

---

He's violated the Constitution

---

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. How'd he do that?

---

Federalist Papers #68
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

---

Not helping, bud.

Quash- This statement is on point "These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union."

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Corrected the typo, somehow, it was hard to figure out what that mess was supposed to have said.

Link the campaign finance law you seem to be referring to. Gotta be in there somewhere...

---

How about you do so. After all, you're the one claiming there is a violation.

---

There he goes again, shifting the burden of proof.

I never brought up the campaign finance law, you did, pretending like you were familiar with it.

We'll just have to discuss this without reference to the law I guess.

---

{ chuckle }

I'm not the one making accusations, and we both know you won't find support for your claims in the actual statute.

But flail away if you wish, you do a fine panic dance, quash.

---

How do you know I'm flailing? You haven't shown any law that contradicts what I said.

---

Again, it;s your accusation Trump broke a law. Yet you cannot produce a specific statute, but fall back yet again on pretending it's the defense's job to prove innocence.

You are certainly flailing like Beto trying to explain his policies.

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
The Constitution- notice the word bribery.

Waco1947 said:

---

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
The Constitution- notice the word bribery.

---

You really struggle with the English language, Waco.

Waco1947 said:

---

Quash- This statement is on point "These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union."

---

That is having a foreign agent as prez.

Why not?

Booray said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

Secondhand does not equal a leak.

---

Simple logic says yes because firsthand wasn't authorized to talk.

---

This is so dumb on its face. Linda Tripp was second-hand, too.

It doesn't matter what the whistleblower saw, it matters if it's true.

---

And in the Trump's WB case, the WB's details have been proven false in light of published transcripts.

---

What? What has been "proven false?"

There was quid pro quo. There were hidden transcripts. What has been proven false?

---

There was no quid pro quo. The transcript shows this.

The transcript was treated exactly the same way Obama handled his communications with foreign leaders. Again, nothing wrong with that.

What has been proven false, is you.

---

The transcript when read in context and understanding nuance does not prove or disprove a quid pro quo. It certainly suggest one to anyone who is not willfully ignorant.

But the point that the President's worshipers fails to grasp about the danger the inquiry presents is that there are lines of investigation that the transcript opens up. For the uninitiated this is how it works:

Head of State calls do not happen on a whim. The President and his national security team talk about the call before and afterwards. Those discussions or briefings include country and region specific experts in the administration. The National Security Adviser is almost always present or listening to the call. The Secretary of State has the option to listen or be present. The calls are not recorded-that practice stopped after the revelation of the Nixon tapes. Instead there are two or three note takers who act as "court reporters" for the call. After the call is over, these not takers produce a memo about the call. The "transcript" the White House produced is the memo from the July 25th call.

Call memos that do not involve national security matters are electronically stored on a server. Call memos that do involve national security matters are stored on a different server that is much more secure and is accessible to far fewer people.

Following the call the National Security team will direct actions consistent with the President's desires following the call.

Many have noted that this head of state call was stored on the more secure "national security matters" server despite the fact no national security matters were discussed. The President's worshipers counter (correctly) that this one not the first time that happened. The practice started after the substance of calls with the presidents of Mexico and Austria were leaked and turned out to be embarrassing to the President. In the Mexico call the President admitted that he never was serious when he said Mexico would pay for the wall. Don't remember the problem with the Austria call. But not all Head of State calls are moved to the secure server. So the first point is that someone around the president made the decision that there was something about the call that was potentially politically damaging.

The second point is that the briefings before the call and the directions after the call may involve something more explicit than the transcript itself. Interestingly, John Bolton might be a key player. Given the way his tenure as NSA ended, I am not sure that the President can count on Bolton to take one for the team. Another key player could be the Ukraine specialist diplomat who resigned as all this became public. That guy was brought on by Rex Tillerson and is though to be loyal to him. Again, not sure that is who the President wants keeping his secrets.

Maybe there is nothing else there or maybe the President can sweep it under the rug. But this is not as simple as just reading the transcript and trying to say what it means.

---

And what those with TDS fail to realize is that there's no quid pro quo despite what you want to read into it. Even if there was, it doesn't matter because there's a treaty in place for cooperation on law enforcement matters.

---

O ntop of the fact that "quid pro quo" does not have to be explicit, the point of my post was that there may be other evidence of "quid pro quo." You missed that, its hard to see how.

I haven't read the treaty but I seriously doubt it obligates the Ukraine to investigate matters that we are not ourselves investigating; I would also guess that there is procedure to be followed that is separate from a Presidential request.

---

Again, you are unable to demonstrate a quid pro quo then say there "may be other evidence". Your emotions are trying to assume words and actions that just aren't there as was the WB using second hand information now proven false.

As to the treaty with Ukraine, it was signed by Bill Clinton and includes mutual cooperation in law enforcement matters.

---

Ok, you tell me. What would sufficient evidence of "quid pro quo" be?

On the treaty, I know who it was signed by and its general subject matter. Apparently that is all you know also. International law enforcement treaties are not simple handshakes on the concept of "we will help you if you help us." The treaties define in what situations they apply and what procedures will be used to invoke the treaty. Nothing like that happened here.

---

For a quid pro quo, you gotta have a will/won't do for a will/won't do.

For the treaty, I've included a link below. There's more, but this is a summary from Clinton's letter...."The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in order to counter criminal activities more effectively. The Treaty should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution of a wide variety of crimes, including drug trafficking offenses. The Treaty is self-executing. It provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state."

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

---

I know what quid pro quo is. The question is what type of evidence would be necessary to convince you that the President attempted to extract a quid pro quo: release of funds for investigation of Biden?

Yes that is great description of the treaty and yes, we all know it was signed by Clinton. And your link demonstrates exactly what I said. There are procedures to be followed. The very first procedure is that requests for cooperation come from the attorney general. (Article 2) Did that happen here? The next procedure is that the receiving country has the right to deny the request if it is for the investigation of a "political offense" or if the request is not properly made. (Article 4). I only had to read that far to establish that this was not a request for assistance under the treaty. If I read the rest of it I could give you 10 more reasons.

---

As to the treaty, neither you nor I know if the procedures are being followed. What we do know is that this goes to US Attorney John Durham's investigation. We'll see.

---

You were the one who was using the treaty to say its ok that President Trump was asking for Ukraine law enforcement assistance. Now you say you do not know if the treaty has been invoked. (It clearly has not). Which is it? Does the treaty cover Trump's request or doesn't it?

If you don't know, how can you say the treaty is relevant to any of this?

---

And it is ok to use that treaty. I never stated the treaty was invoked. You assume it hasn't. There doesn't have to be some declaration that it's invoked. It could've been, but that's up to Durham. There was no quid pro quo in the first place, but even if there was, the treaty covers that because it's a mutual law enforcement investigation.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"The United States has been very, good to Ukraine. Do me a favor....". Trump's words indict him.

---

His words do indict him...for the crime of being president. That's what it's always been about.

---

He's violated the Constitution

---

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. How'd he do that?

---

Federalist Papers #68
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

---

So, nothing about how Trump violated the Constitution.