New Story on Quid Pro Quo.
7,099 Views |
88 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by quash
Yeah, we know. It's astonishing.curtpenn said:The truly sad thing is the left is dumb enough to think those who oppose them only do so out of support for Trump. The reality is, we right thinking people are willing to tolerate even a Trump over against the policy ideas and platform of the neo-fascists of the left.HuMcK said:
Mulvaney is trying to pull a fast one. Notice how he stays away from mentioning Biden in connection to the withheld funds, this is the administration saying "yes we withheld the money, but it was about 2016 not 2020 and there's nothing wrong with that". Nevermind that the "Ukraine has the DNC servers" thing is insane (and comes from Russian Mafia connected Dmitry Firtash, crazy how these guys are always trying to deflect blame away from Russia...). Sad thing is, Trump's base is dumb enough to run with it.
The left being dumb is not astonishing at all.cinque said:Yeah, we know. It's astonishing.curtpenn said:The truly sad thing is the left is dumb enough to think those who oppose them only do so out of support for Trump. The reality is, we right thinking people are willing to tolerate even a Trump over against the policy ideas and platform of the neo-fascists of the left.HuMcK said:
Mulvaney is trying to pull a fast one. Notice how he stays away from mentioning Biden in connection to the withheld funds, this is the administration saying "yes we withheld the money, but it was about 2016 not 2020 and there's nothing wrong with that". Nevermind that the "Ukraine has the DNC servers" thing is insane (and comes from Russian Mafia connected Dmitry Firtash, crazy how these guys are always trying to deflect blame away from Russia...). Sad thing is, Trump's base is dumb enough to run with it.
The pattern that's emerging is that the career diplomats clearly understood that what Trump was doing was wrong, and that the Trump appointees and enablers did not and viewed staff opposition as obstructionism rather than as an attempt to keep Trump and his administration from doing something that's clearly illegal and/or unethical.
The conspiracy rhetoric about the "Deep State" appears to have the nefarious purpose of undermining the government staff we depend on to understand and enforce compliance to the rule of law and the constitution.
And Trump's supporters care so little about whether he obeys the law (for starters, by paying his taxes) that they view any attempt by staff for whom the kind of behavior Trump has engaged in would be both a fireable and a criiminal offense to stop that behavior as obstruction.
The conspiracy rhetoric about the "Deep State" appears to have the nefarious purpose of undermining the government staff we depend on to understand and enforce compliance to the rule of law and the constitution.
And Trump's supporters care so little about whether he obeys the law (for starters, by paying his taxes) that they view any attempt by staff for whom the kind of behavior Trump has engaged in would be both a fireable and a criiminal offense to stop that behavior as obstruction.
I don't care if he is impeached. The country voted for him knowing he would do this sort of stuff so we are stuck with him until we get another chance to vote.HuMcK said:
A little bit louder for those in the back...
But for emphasis it is very clear that POTUS was using appropriated aid that an ally needed. The point of withholding the aid was to gain a personal political advantage. The country that was the subject of the withholding has to deal with a constant Russian threat, Russia being our longest standing adversary.
It is even clearer that part of the investigation POTUS wanted announced is based on a theory that has been completely and totally debunked.
But most of all it is clear that the majority of POTUS' supporters have zero shame about this or any of POTUS' 10,000 other ethical and moral failings. They are proud to support a guy who would sell his mother's pearls to buy himself a ham sandwich.
I care that he's impeached because the process was tailor made for crooked amoral people like him.
Not impeaching him would say far more about us than it would him
Not impeaching him would say far more about us than it would him
Will Pence pardon Trump? I think so.
This is an easy position for anti-Trumpers to take, in the same way it's easy for people to say lawyers are all sell-outs and have no scruples. You should understand that it's more complicated than that.Booray said:
But most of all it is clear that the majority of POTUS' supporters have zero shame about this or any of POTUS' 10,000 other ethical and moral failings. They are proud to support a guy who would sell his mother's pearls to buy himself a ham sandwich.
This is the end for Trump, you Cons. He is at the end of his rope (Even though white people can't be hanged).cinque said:
Will Pence pardon Trump? I think so.
I REALLY mean it this time. He is finished!!!
LOLOLOL!!!!
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
How could it? We were already there.HuMcK said:
Didn't take long to get to this point.
Can you provide the undeniable evidence of a quid pro quo?Booray said:I don't care if he is impeached. The country voted for him knowing he would do this sort of stuff so we are stuck with him until we get another chance to vote.HuMcK said:
A little bit louder for those in the back...
But for emphasis it is very clear that POTUS was using appropriated aid that an ally needed. The point of withholding the aid was to gain a personal political advantage. The country that was the subject of the withholding has to deal with a constant Russian threat, Russia being our longest standing adversary.
It is even clearer that part of the investigation POTUS wanted announced is based on a theory that has been completely and totally debunked.
But most of all it is clear that the majority of POTUS' supporters have zero shame about this or any of POTUS' 10,000 other ethical and moral failings. They are proud to support a guy who would sell his mother's pearls to buy himself a ham sandwich.
Oh no...you can't. Your outrage is fake as it gets.
Since you would deny anything setting the bar at undeniable is unreasonable.Doc Holliday said:Can you provide the undeniable evidence of a quid pro quo?Booray said:I don't care if he is impeached. The country voted for him knowing he would do this sort of stuff so we are stuck with him until we get another chance to vote.HuMcK said:
A little bit louder for those in the back...
But for emphasis it is very clear that POTUS was using appropriated aid that an ally needed. The point of withholding the aid was to gain a personal political advantage. The country that was the subject of the withholding has to deal with a constant Russian threat, Russia being our longest standing adversary.
It is even clearer that part of the investigation POTUS wanted announced is based on a theory that has been completely and totally debunked.
But most of all it is clear that the majority of POTUS' supporters have zero shame about this or any of POTUS' 10,000 other ethical and moral failings. They are proud to support a guy who would sell his mother's pearls to buy himself a ham sandwich.
Oh no...you can't. Your outrage is fake as it gets.
And that isn't outrage, and it's not faked. Trump is corroding our national civic institutions, a high crime.
"I'm not mango, Impeach."
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Evidence please...quash said:Since you would deny anything setting the bar at undeniable is unreasonable.Doc Holliday said:Can you provide the undeniable evidence of a quid pro quo?Booray said:I don't care if he is impeached. The country voted for him knowing he would do this sort of stuff so we are stuck with him until we get another chance to vote.HuMcK said:
A little bit louder for those in the back...
But for emphasis it is very clear that POTUS was using appropriated aid that an ally needed. The point of withholding the aid was to gain a personal political advantage. The country that was the subject of the withholding has to deal with a constant Russian threat, Russia being our longest standing adversary.
It is even clearer that part of the investigation POTUS wanted announced is based on a theory that has been completely and totally debunked.
But most of all it is clear that the majority of POTUS' supporters have zero shame about this or any of POTUS' 10,000 other ethical and moral failings. They are proud to support a guy who would sell his mother's pearls to buy himself a ham sandwich.
Oh no...you can't. Your outrage is fake as it gets.
And that isn't outrage, and it's not faked. Trump is corroding our national civic institutions, a high crime.
"I'm not mango, Impeach."
Been posted many times. But keep praising the Emperor's cool threads.Doc Holliday said:Evidence please...quash said:Since you would deny anything setting the bar at undeniable is unreasonable.Doc Holliday said:Can you provide the undeniable evidence of a quid pro quo?Booray said:I don't care if he is impeached. The country voted for him knowing he would do this sort of stuff so we are stuck with him until we get another chance to vote.HuMcK said:
A little bit louder for those in the back...
But for emphasis it is very clear that POTUS was using appropriated aid that an ally needed. The point of withholding the aid was to gain a personal political advantage. The country that was the subject of the withholding has to deal with a constant Russian threat, Russia being our longest standing adversary.
It is even clearer that part of the investigation POTUS wanted announced is based on a theory that has been completely and totally debunked.
But most of all it is clear that the majority of POTUS' supporters have zero shame about this or any of POTUS' 10,000 other ethical and moral failings. They are proud to support a guy who would sell his mother's pearls to buy himself a ham sandwich.
Oh no...you can't. Your outrage is fake as it gets.
And that isn't outrage, and it's not faked. Trump is corroding our national civic institutions, a high crime.
"I'm not mango, Impeach."
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
I would probably start with the fact that his own chief of staff admitted it.Doc Holliday said:Can you provide the undeniable evidence of a quid pro quo?Booray said:I don't care if he is impeached. The country voted for him knowing he would do this sort of stuff so we are stuck with him until we get another chance to vote.HuMcK said:
A little bit louder for those in the back...
But for emphasis it is very clear that POTUS was using appropriated aid that an ally needed. The point of withholding the aid was to gain a personal political advantage. The country that was the subject of the withholding has to deal with a constant Russian threat, Russia being our longest standing adversary.
It is even clearer that part of the investigation POTUS wanted announced is based on a theory that has been completely and totally debunked.
But most of all it is clear that the majority of POTUS' supporters have zero shame about this or any of POTUS' 10,000 other ethical and moral failings. They are proud to support a guy who would sell his mother's pearls to buy himself a ham sandwich.
Oh no...you can't. Your outrage is fake as it gets.
I would add to it the fact that when the aid was withheld, the White House refused to explain to even the Republican congressmen and senators who were concerned about it why the aid was withheld. If he was withholding based on the need for NATO to y more and/or general corruption issues, that should have been made clear and discussed with the people who had voted to appropriate the money. The fact that a reason was hidden raises suspicion.
Taylor's testimony and text messages completes that suspicion. As the person nominally in charge in Ukraine he saw what was happening and new it was "crazy" and bad for Ukraine. When he put his concerns in text messages, Sonland did a transparent cya (that he now apparently disavows) and said-lets not discuss this anymore where there is record being made of it. Why do you think that was?
You read the report of the July call in that context and it is as clear as day to anyone with half a brain what was going on.
Is it "undeniable?" Of course not, because Trump and his Trumpkins will deny anything, regardless of the mountain of evidence that proves that thing happened.
No it is really not more complicated than that. Donald J. Trump has no moral compass. He leads his life and makes his decisions on one basis alone: what is good for Donald J. Trump. He is not constrained by the law, believing himself above the law.Sam Lowry said:This is an easy position for anti-Trumpers to take, in the same way it's easy for people to say lawyers are all sell-outs and have no scruples. You should understand that it's more complicated than that.Booray said:
But most of all it is clear that the majority of POTUS' supporters have zero shame about this or any of POTUS' 10,000 other ethical and moral failings. They are proud to support a guy who would sell his mother's pearls to buy himself a ham sandwich.
I am a damn good judge of character and I have seen enough to know that the above statements are true. Its why he has been sued 3,500 times, why his default conversation is mean, petty insults, why he thinks he can just grab women whenever he wants to, why he has been divorced three times, why he lies on property tax documents and applications for bank loans, why he is afraid to release his tax returns; why he lies about every little thing and and why he measures his life by money and fame.
I understand that all presidents are arrogant; Trump goes way beyond that.
What is complicated is that you share his apparent policy goals. If you want to make the argument that he may be a despicable human being but he is moving us closer to a pro-life, more secure, less regulated country, I understand.
Pretending that we should believe one word that comes out of his mouth, however, is irrational given his track record.
Bill Taylor wasn't even on the call between Trump and Zelensky, didn't even read the transcript until it was released publicly, and only heard about the call from other people so it would go a long way to explaining why the whistleblower got it so wrong.Booray said:I would probably start with the fact that his own chief of staff admitted it.Doc Holliday said:Can you provide the undeniable evidence of a quid pro quo?Booray said:I don't care if he is impeached. The country voted for him knowing he would do this sort of stuff so we are stuck with him until we get another chance to vote.HuMcK said:
A little bit louder for those in the back...
But for emphasis it is very clear that POTUS was using appropriated aid that an ally needed. The point of withholding the aid was to gain a personal political advantage. The country that was the subject of the withholding has to deal with a constant Russian threat, Russia being our longest standing adversary.
It is even clearer that part of the investigation POTUS wanted announced is based on a theory that has been completely and totally debunked.
But most of all it is clear that the majority of POTUS' supporters have zero shame about this or any of POTUS' 10,000 other ethical and moral failings. They are proud to support a guy who would sell his mother's pearls to buy himself a ham sandwich.
Oh no...you can't. Your outrage is fake as it gets.
I would add to it the fact that when the aid was withheld, the White House refused to explain to even the Republican congressmen and senators who were concerned about it why the aid was withheld. If he was withholding based on the need for NATO to y more and/or general corruption issues, that should have been made clear and discussed with the people who had voted to appropriate the money. The fact that a reason was hidden raises suspicion.
Taylor's testimony and text messages completes that suspicion. As the person nominally in charge in Ukraine he saw what was happening and new it was "crazy" and bad for Ukraine. When he put his concerns in text messages, Sonland did a transparent cya (that he now apparently disavows) and said-lets not discuss this anymore where there is record being made of it. Why do you think that was?
You read the report of the July call in that context and it is as clear as day to anyone with half a brain what was going on.
Is it "undeniable?" Of course not, because Trump and his Trumpkins will deny anything, regardless of the mountain of evidence that proves that thing happened.
From the Bill Taylor testimony, he didn't even receive a readout of the call transcript from Trump to Zelensky
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
We all read it, nothing bad happened in the call, and there was no quid pro quo.
Well over a month after the July 25th phone call, Ukraine learned from a Politico article that the aid had been held up, and Bill Taylor told them he had no idea why it was being held up. If Bill Taylor didn't know, and Ukraine didn't know, how can there be a quid pro quo?
I am not going to have any discussion with you beyond this post because you are incapable of critical thought on the subject. But first, here is Taylor's statement. He explains it for you:Doc Holliday said:Bill Taylor wasn't even on the call between Trump and Zelensky, didn't even read the transcript until it was released publicly, and only heard about the call from other people so it would go a long way to explaining why the whistleblower got it so wrong.Booray said:I would probably start with the fact that his own chief of staff admitted it.Doc Holliday said:Can you provide the undeniable evidence of a quid pro quo?Booray said:I don't care if he is impeached. The country voted for him knowing he would do this sort of stuff so we are stuck with him until we get another chance to vote.HuMcK said:
A little bit louder for those in the back...
But for emphasis it is very clear that POTUS was using appropriated aid that an ally needed. The point of withholding the aid was to gain a personal political advantage. The country that was the subject of the withholding has to deal with a constant Russian threat, Russia being our longest standing adversary.
It is even clearer that part of the investigation POTUS wanted announced is based on a theory that has been completely and totally debunked.
But most of all it is clear that the majority of POTUS' supporters have zero shame about this or any of POTUS' 10,000 other ethical and moral failings. They are proud to support a guy who would sell his mother's pearls to buy himself a ham sandwich.
Oh no...you can't. Your outrage is fake as it gets.
I would add to it the fact that when the aid was withheld, the White House refused to explain to even the Republican congressmen and senators who were concerned about it why the aid was withheld. If he was withholding based on the need for NATO to y more and/or general corruption issues, that should have been made clear and discussed with the people who had voted to appropriate the money. The fact that a reason was hidden raises suspicion.
Taylor's testimony and text messages completes that suspicion. As the person nominally in charge in Ukraine he saw what was happening and new it was "crazy" and bad for Ukraine. When he put his concerns in text messages, Sonland did a transparent cya (that he now apparently disavows) and said-lets not discuss this anymore where there is record being made of it. Why do you think that was?
You read the report of the July call in that context and it is as clear as day to anyone with half a brain what was going on.
Is it "undeniable?" Of course not, because Trump and his Trumpkins will deny anything, regardless of the mountain of evidence that proves that thing happened.
From the Bill Taylor testimony, he didn't even receive a readout of the call transcript from Trump to Zelensky
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
We all read it, nothing bad happened in the call, and there was no quid pro quo.
Well over a month after the July 25th phone call, Ukraine learned from a Politico article that the aid had been held up, and Bill Taylor told them he had no idea why it was being held up. If Bill Taylor didn't know, and Ukraine didn't know, how can there be a quid pro quo?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony.html?module=inline&te=1&nl=frank-bruni&emc=edit_fb_20191023?campaign_id=93&instance_id=13318&segment_id=18168&user_id=c2abe1d2d1a3a1fe920616481e5dc710®i_id=98308315
And second, the question isn't whether the telephone call itself was quid pro quo demand. The call is one piece of evidence demonstrating Trump's policy was quid pro quo-aid for the appearance of dirt on his political rivals.
You don't understand because you won't understand. Out.
First, John Ratcliffe went to law school and was a trial lawyer, He knows better than most that proving something often requires evidence from several sources. Pretending that one witness not proving an entire case means that there isn't a case is just dumb.riflebear said:
I assume most of the liberal posters on here are college educated (hopefully not BU).
How on earth could a college educated human being fall for the media lies over and over again and continue to push their conspiracy theories? Is your hatred for Trump and the GOP that much you just don't care?
Second, I wonder what he means by "evidence." I am guessing he means that Taylor could not say he heard directly from a Ukrainian official that Trump was demanding a public announcement of probes on Burisma and crowdstrike. But if the evidence these demands were being made through the irregular "Giuliani channel" it is not surprising either. Taylor, however seems to have provided lots of detail that the policy existed.
Third, as long as Donald Trump is in office, the Ukranians are in a precarious position. Statements that would hurt Trump could damage their national security. So saying out loud what Ratcliffe seems to want to hear would be an existential crisis. Prosecutors win cases all the time when the "victim" refuses to testify.
What about when the 'victim' literally comes out and DENIES anything illegal happened as the President of Ukraine did.Booray said:First, John Ratcliffe went to law school and was a trial lawyer, He knows better than most that proving something often requires evidence from several sources. Pretending that one witness not proving an entire case means that there isn't a case is just dumb.riflebear said:
I assume most of the liberal posters on here are college educated (hopefully not BU).
How on earth could a college educated human being fall for the media lies over and over again and continue to push their conspiracy theories? Is your hatred for Trump and the GOP that much you just don't care?
Second, I wonder what he means by "evidence." I am guessing he means that Taylor could not say he heard directly from a Ukrainian official that Trump was demanding a public announcement of probes on Burisma and crowdstrike. But if the evidence these demands were being made through the irregular "Giuliani channel" it is not surprising either. Taylor, however seems to have provided lots of detail that the policy existed.
Third, as long as Donald Trump is in office, the Ukranians are in a precarious position. Statements that would hurt Trump could damage their national security. So saying out loud what Ratcliffe seems to want to hear would be an existential crisis. Prosecutors win cases all the time when the "victim" refuses to testify.
Keep trying to spin this, it's fun watching you guys walk off a cliff trying to defend each new conspiracy.
And yet there is no there, there.Booray said:I am not going to have any discussion with you beyond this post because you are incapable of critical thought on the subject. But first, here is Taylor's statement. He explains it for you:Doc Holliday said:Bill Taylor wasn't even on the call between Trump and Zelensky, didn't even read the transcript until it was released publicly, and only heard about the call from other people so it would go a long way to explaining why the whistleblower got it so wrong.Booray said:I would probably start with the fact that his own chief of staff admitted it.Doc Holliday said:Can you provide the undeniable evidence of a quid pro quo?Booray said:I don't care if he is impeached. The country voted for him knowing he would do this sort of stuff so we are stuck with him until we get another chance to vote.HuMcK said:
A little bit louder for those in the back...
But for emphasis it is very clear that POTUS was using appropriated aid that an ally needed. The point of withholding the aid was to gain a personal political advantage. The country that was the subject of the withholding has to deal with a constant Russian threat, Russia being our longest standing adversary.
It is even clearer that part of the investigation POTUS wanted announced is based on a theory that has been completely and totally debunked.
But most of all it is clear that the majority of POTUS' supporters have zero shame about this or any of POTUS' 10,000 other ethical and moral failings. They are proud to support a guy who would sell his mother's pearls to buy himself a ham sandwich.
Oh no...you can't. Your outrage is fake as it gets.
I would add to it the fact that when the aid was withheld, the White House refused to explain to even the Republican congressmen and senators who were concerned about it why the aid was withheld. If he was withholding based on the need for NATO to y more and/or general corruption issues, that should have been made clear and discussed with the people who had voted to appropriate the money. The fact that a reason was hidden raises suspicion.
Taylor's testimony and text messages completes that suspicion. As the person nominally in charge in Ukraine he saw what was happening and new it was "crazy" and bad for Ukraine. When he put his concerns in text messages, Sonland did a transparent cya (that he now apparently disavows) and said-lets not discuss this anymore where there is record being made of it. Why do you think that was?
You read the report of the July call in that context and it is as clear as day to anyone with half a brain what was going on.
Is it "undeniable?" Of course not, because Trump and his Trumpkins will deny anything, regardless of the mountain of evidence that proves that thing happened.
From the Bill Taylor testimony, he didn't even receive a readout of the call transcript from Trump to Zelensky
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
We all read it, nothing bad happened in the call, and there was no quid pro quo.
Well over a month after the July 25th phone call, Ukraine learned from a Politico article that the aid had been held up, and Bill Taylor told them he had no idea why it was being held up. If Bill Taylor didn't know, and Ukraine didn't know, how can there be a quid pro quo?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony.html?module=inline&te=1&nl=frank-bruni&emc=edit_fb_20191023?campaign_id=93&instance_id=13318&segment_id=18168&user_id=c2abe1d2d1a3a1fe920616481e5dc710®i_id=98308315
And second, the question isn't whether the telephone call itself was quid pro quo demand. The call is one piece of evidence demonstrating Trump's policy was quid pro quo-aid for the appearance of dirt on his political rivals.
You don't understand because you won't understand. Out.
The call with Zelensky was on July 25 and we have all read the transcript of that call.
Give yourself an uppercut
And the 'aid' was given to Ukraine w/out receiving anything in return. It's hilarious that 'every' witness Schiff brings in fails to help their agenda but he selectively leaks something that feeds his base and the media to keep pushing this narrative. They literally learned nothing from Russia and flat out don't care when they know they are lying.Doc Holliday said:And yet there is no there, there.Booray said:I am not going to have any discussion with you beyond this post because you are incapable of critical thought on the subject. But first, here is Taylor's statement. He explains it for you:Doc Holliday said:Bill Taylor wasn't even on the call between Trump and Zelensky, didn't even read the transcript until it was released publicly, and only heard about the call from other people so it would go a long way to explaining why the whistleblower got it so wrong.Booray said:I would probably start with the fact that his own chief of staff admitted it.Doc Holliday said:Can you provide the undeniable evidence of a quid pro quo?Booray said:I don't care if he is impeached. The country voted for him knowing he would do this sort of stuff so we are stuck with him until we get another chance to vote.HuMcK said:
A little bit louder for those in the back...
But for emphasis it is very clear that POTUS was using appropriated aid that an ally needed. The point of withholding the aid was to gain a personal political advantage. The country that was the subject of the withholding has to deal with a constant Russian threat, Russia being our longest standing adversary.
It is even clearer that part of the investigation POTUS wanted announced is based on a theory that has been completely and totally debunked.
But most of all it is clear that the majority of POTUS' supporters have zero shame about this or any of POTUS' 10,000 other ethical and moral failings. They are proud to support a guy who would sell his mother's pearls to buy himself a ham sandwich.
Oh no...you can't. Your outrage is fake as it gets.
I would add to it the fact that when the aid was withheld, the White House refused to explain to even the Republican congressmen and senators who were concerned about it why the aid was withheld. If he was withholding based on the need for NATO to y more and/or general corruption issues, that should have been made clear and discussed with the people who had voted to appropriate the money. The fact that a reason was hidden raises suspicion.
Taylor's testimony and text messages completes that suspicion. As the person nominally in charge in Ukraine he saw what was happening and new it was "crazy" and bad for Ukraine. When he put his concerns in text messages, Sonland did a transparent cya (that he now apparently disavows) and said-lets not discuss this anymore where there is record being made of it. Why do you think that was?
You read the report of the July call in that context and it is as clear as day to anyone with half a brain what was going on.
Is it "undeniable?" Of course not, because Trump and his Trumpkins will deny anything, regardless of the mountain of evidence that proves that thing happened.
From the Bill Taylor testimony, he didn't even receive a readout of the call transcript from Trump to Zelensky
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
We all read it, nothing bad happened in the call, and there was no quid pro quo.
Well over a month after the July 25th phone call, Ukraine learned from a Politico article that the aid had been held up, and Bill Taylor told them he had no idea why it was being held up. If Bill Taylor didn't know, and Ukraine didn't know, how can there be a quid pro quo?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony.html?module=inline&te=1&nl=frank-bruni&emc=edit_fb_20191023?campaign_id=93&instance_id=13318&segment_id=18168&user_id=c2abe1d2d1a3a1fe920616481e5dc710®i_id=98308315
And second, the question isn't whether the telephone call itself was quid pro quo demand. The call is one piece of evidence demonstrating Trump's policy was quid pro quo-aid for the appearance of dirt on his political rivals.
You don't understand because you won't understand. Out.
The call with Zelensky was on July 25 and we have all read the transcript of that call.
Give yourself an uppercut
So nothing was held back in aid
The President of Ukraine also said nothing was held from them or told that it would be
Yet we have Schiff and the Dems and the media trying to tell us the complete opposite. This would be thrown out of a mock trial in an elementary school mock trial case
Where did you get your law degree? Time and time again you demonstrate that you have no legal expertise whatsoever, and yet you still have the utmost confidence in whatever legal theory you think exonerates Trump. Meanwhile you, who I assume to be a college grad, continue to believe the self-serving words of a known liar in Trump. Your posts can sometimes be fun to read simply for the irony dripping off of them.riflebear said:
I assume most of the liberal posters on here are college educated (hopefully not BU).
How on earth could a college educated human being fall for the media lies over and over again and continue to push their conspiracy theories? Is your hatred for Trump and the GOP that much you just don't care?
Opinions are like noses. Everybody's got one. John Ratcliffe is no exception. His opinion in this case is wrong.Booray said:First, John Ratcliffe went to law school and was a trial lawyer, He knows better than most that proving something often requires evidence from several sources. Pretending that one witness not proving an entire case means that there isn't a case is just dumb.riflebear said:
I assume most of the liberal posters on here are college educated (hopefully not BU).
How on earth could a college educated human being fall for the media lies over and over again and continue to push their conspiracy theories? Is your hatred for Trump and the GOP that much you just don't care?
Second, I wonder what he means by "evidence." I am guessing he means that Taylor could not say he heard directly from a Ukrainian official that Trump was demanding a public announcement of probes on Burisma and crowdstrike. But if the evidence these demands were being made through the irregular "Giuliani channel" it is not surprising either. Taylor, however seems to have provided lots of detail that the policy existed.
Third, as long as Donald Trump is in office, the Ukranians are in a precarious position. Statements that would hurt Trump could damage their national security. So saying out loud what Ratcliffe seems to want to hear would be an existential crisis. Prosecutors win cases all the time when the "victim" refuses to testify.
Yes, please share your constitutional law backgroundHuMcK said:Where did you get your law degree? Time and time again you demonstrate that you have no legal expertise whatsoever, and yet you still have the utmost confidence in whatever legal theory you think exonerates Trump. Meanwhile you, who I assume to be a college grad, continue to believe the self-serving words of a known liar in Trump. Your posts can sometimes be fun to read simply for the irony dripping off of them.riflebear said:
I assume most of the liberal posters on here are college educated (hopefully not BU).
How on earth could a college educated human being fall for the media lies over and over again and continue to push their conspiracy theories? Is your hatred for Trump and the GOP that much you just don't care?
And yet you who supposedly has a Univ of Phoenix Law Degree has been wrong over and over again on your 'legal theories'. Do you bill your clients for the time you post on here? I'm guessing your practice isn't busy for the amount of time you are on here or read your liberal articles.
I trust the unbiased attorneys I read and hear who have been right on this stuff for over 3 years vs you and your libs in the media who have literally been wrong every step of the way and no that's not an exaggeration. Many of them have criticized Trump throughout the years but have been right every time about the law.
And by the way - I criticize Trump all the time.
riflebear said:And yet you who supposedly has a Univ of Phoenix Law Degree has been wrong over and over again on your 'legal theories'. Do you bill your clients for the time you post on here? I'm guessing your practice isn't busy for the amount of time you are on here or read your liberal articles.HuMcK said:Where did you get your law degree? Time and time again you demonstrate that you have no legal expertise whatsoever, and yet you still have the utmost confidence in whatever legal theory you think exonerates Trump. Meanwhile you, who I assume to be a college grad, continue to believe the self-serving words of a known liar in Trump. Your posts can sometimes be fun to read simply for the irony dripping off of them.riflebear said:
I assume most of the liberal posters on here are college educated (hopefully not BU).
How on earth could a college educated human being fall for the media lies over and over again and continue to push their conspiracy theories? Is your hatred for Trump and the GOP that much you just don't care?
Care to share your resume on constitutional law? I trust the unbiased attorneys I read and hear who have been right on this stuff for over 3 years vs you and your libs in the media who have literally been wrong every step of the way and no that's not an exaggeration. Many of them have criticized Trump throughout the years but have been right every time about the law.
And by the way - I criticize Trump all the time.
I dont bill clients, because I'm a prosecutor. If you ever wondered why I have a such problem with Trump's lack of respect for the rule of law, there's your answer. Adherence to the law is literally my business.
And yet you ignore everything the Dems do. If you were fair in your criticism then I'd respect you, but your selective 'respect for the rule of law' based on bipartisanship makes you a hypocrite w/ all due respect.HuMcK said:riflebear said:And yet you who supposedly has a Univ of Phoenix Law Degree has been wrong over and over again on your 'legal theories'. Do you bill your clients for the time you post on here? I'm guessing your practice isn't busy for the amount of time you are on here or read your liberal articles.HuMcK said:Where did you get your law degree? Time and time again you demonstrate that you have no legal expertise whatsoever, and yet you still have the utmost confidence in whatever legal theory you think exonerates Trump. Meanwhile you, who I assume to be a college grad, continue to believe the self-serving words of a known liar in Trump. Your posts can sometimes be fun to read simply for the irony dripping off of them.riflebear said:
I assume most of the liberal posters on here are college educated (hopefully not BU).
How on earth could a college educated human being fall for the media lies over and over again and continue to push their conspiracy theories? Is your hatred for Trump and the GOP that much you just don't care?
Care to share your resume on constitutional law? I trust the unbiased attorneys I read and hear who have been right on this stuff for over 3 years vs you and your libs in the media who have literally been wrong every step of the way and no that's not an exaggeration. Many of them have criticized Trump throughout the years but have been right every time about the law.
And by the way - I criticize Trump all the time.
I dont bill clients, because I'm a prosecutor. If you ever wondered why I have a such problem with Trump's lack of respect for the rule of law, there's your answer. Adherence to the law is literally my business.
You as a prosecutor should know Presidents have legal teams to help them get around the law daily. Trump has been transparent (and naive) more than any other President I've seen in my lifetime and he's under a microscope more than any other. To think he would knowingly do something w/ the deep state watching over him is naive IMO. Of course he's not innocent of everything, no one is but what they are trying to push on him is insane IMO. If he did something knowingly outrageous I would be the first to call him out but this is not it.
You libs forget that he was illegally targeted before and after he became President. If the GOP had done this to Obama there would already be many in jail but they are all protecting each other. I just pray that justice is done and whoever is guilty (no matter what side of the aisle you are on) is brought to justice.
Honest question - if you are prosecuting a crime and the alleged 'victim' testifies that there was no crime or damages what do you do?
Lets remember Obama literally gave Ukraine blankets when they were fighting Russia as they were working w/ them to take down Trump. Yet Trump gives them millions to help fight Russia (remember the country Libs said Trump was an agent of) and somehow Trump is guilty of QPQ?
Partial transcript. Or, since you said there was no recording, a partial summary. And still evidence of a QPQ.Doc Holliday said:And yet there is no there, there.Booray said:I am not going to have any discussion with you beyond this post because you are incapable of critical thought on the subject. But first, here is Taylor's statement. He explains it for you:Doc Holliday said:Bill Taylor wasn't even on the call between Trump and Zelensky, didn't even read the transcript until it was released publicly, and only heard about the call from other people so it would go a long way to explaining why the whistleblower got it so wrong.Booray said:I would probably start with the fact that his own chief of staff admitted it.Doc Holliday said:Can you provide the undeniable evidence of a quid pro quo?Booray said:I don't care if he is impeached. The country voted for him knowing he would do this sort of stuff so we are stuck with him until we get another chance to vote.HuMcK said:
A little bit louder for those in the back...
But for emphasis it is very clear that POTUS was using appropriated aid that an ally needed. The point of withholding the aid was to gain a personal political advantage. The country that was the subject of the withholding has to deal with a constant Russian threat, Russia being our longest standing adversary.
It is even clearer that part of the investigation POTUS wanted announced is based on a theory that has been completely and totally debunked.
But most of all it is clear that the majority of POTUS' supporters have zero shame about this or any of POTUS' 10,000 other ethical and moral failings. They are proud to support a guy who would sell his mother's pearls to buy himself a ham sandwich.
Oh no...you can't. Your outrage is fake as it gets.
I would add to it the fact that when the aid was withheld, the White House refused to explain to even the Republican congressmen and senators who were concerned about it why the aid was withheld. If he was withholding based on the need for NATO to y more and/or general corruption issues, that should have been made clear and discussed with the people who had voted to appropriate the money. The fact that a reason was hidden raises suspicion.
Taylor's testimony and text messages completes that suspicion. As the person nominally in charge in Ukraine he saw what was happening and new it was "crazy" and bad for Ukraine. When he put his concerns in text messages, Sonland did a transparent cya (that he now apparently disavows) and said-lets not discuss this anymore where there is record being made of it. Why do you think that was?
You read the report of the July call in that context and it is as clear as day to anyone with half a brain what was going on.
Is it "undeniable?" Of course not, because Trump and his Trumpkins will deny anything, regardless of the mountain of evidence that proves that thing happened.
From the Bill Taylor testimony, he didn't even receive a readout of the call transcript from Trump to Zelensky
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
We all read it, nothing bad happened in the call, and there was no quid pro quo.
Well over a month after the July 25th phone call, Ukraine learned from a Politico article that the aid had been held up, and Bill Taylor told them he had no idea why it was being held up. If Bill Taylor didn't know, and Ukraine didn't know, how can there be a quid pro quo?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony.html?module=inline&te=1&nl=frank-bruni&emc=edit_fb_20191023?campaign_id=93&instance_id=13318&segment_id=18168&user_id=c2abe1d2d1a3a1fe920616481e5dc710®i_id=98308315
And second, the question isn't whether the telephone call itself was quid pro quo demand. The call is one piece of evidence demonstrating Trump's policy was quid pro quo-aid for the appearance of dirt on his political rivals.
You don't understand because you won't understand. Out.
The call with Zelensky was on July 25 and we have all read the transcript of that call.
Give yourself an uppercut
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
The aid was held up pending Trump's ask. That much is plain as day. President Zelensky talked about checking their account every day, wondering where the money was. That you don't get that speaks volumes about your online degree and Photoshopped BU diploma.riflebear said:
Honest question - if you are prosecuting a crime and the alleged 'victim' testifies that there was no crime or damages what do you do?
You keeping harping on "libs" as though you are a conservative. You are not. You are a t-shirt fan of Team Trump. Your cut and paste jobs are laughable, so much so I rarely address them. Just the funniest, like when you post a story from another country thinking it's about the US. Classic riflebear.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Ratcliff is the only con brazen enough to try and defend the indefensible. The rest of them are just shrugging their shoulders.Jinx 2 said:Opinions are like noses. Everybody's got one. John Ratcliffe is no exception. His opinion in this case is wrong.Booray said:First, John Ratcliffe went to law school and was a trial lawyer, He knows better than most that proving something often requires evidence from several sources. Pretending that one witness not proving an entire case means that there isn't a case is just dumb.riflebear said:
I assume most of the liberal posters on here are college educated (hopefully not BU).
How on earth could a college educated human being fall for the media lies over and over again and continue to push their conspiracy theories? Is your hatred for Trump and the GOP that much you just don't care?
Second, I wonder what he means by "evidence." I am guessing he means that Taylor could not say he heard directly from a Ukrainian official that Trump was demanding a public announcement of probes on Burisma and crowdstrike. But if the evidence these demands were being made through the irregular "Giuliani channel" it is not surprising either. Taylor, however seems to have provided lots of detail that the policy existed.
Third, as long as Donald Trump is in office, the Ukranians are in a precarious position. Statements that would hurt Trump could damage their national security. So saying out loud what Ratcliffe seems to want to hear would be an existential crisis. Prosecutors win cases all the time when the "victim" refuses to testify.