Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if there was no quid pro quo, why was the money withheld? Why did the Ukranians think there was a quid pro quo?

If agreement wasn’t a prerequisite for aid, that means aid would have been delivered even if they didn’t agree. So why hold up aid to begin with? That doesn’t add up. Trump’s own defense doesn’t make sense without a quid quo pro.

It sounds like some of these deep state bureaucrats were getting too far out over their skis. To put pressure on the Ukrainians, they may have said or implied a quid pro quo. But Trump never instructed them to do that.

These deep state bureaucrats are used to saying whatever they want under the assumption that no one is ever going to know. They could make any kind of threats or promises that they want to get the desired result. That doesn't mean it was ordered by Trump.

No, lack of a quid pro quo doesn't mean aid would have been delivered even if they didn't agree. It means the two things are not linked.

So the new argument is that he never explicitly directed them to do this? They should all go to jail but not him right? Because obviously what was done was highly wrong and illegal.

Actually, it wasn't illegal. That's why the Democrats don't know what to do with themselves. There's simply no legal prohibition against an American official, in this case the President, requesting assistance of a foreign government for investigations of crimes committed on foreign soil. Clearly the Obama Administration did that in the case of its investigations of the Trump campaign in 2016; assistance was sought, and received, from multiple foreign governments.

Yes it it illegal. Trump is specifically asking for foreign help in the election. And it sure looks like he withheld aid and dangled a WH meeting to make sure the Ukrainian President complied.

If you think that's OK then you need to find a different country. Say, Russia? China? North Korea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Chairman of the Federal Election Commission for the past 19 years, originally appointed by Bush, thinks its a crime to ask a foreign country to investigate a political opponent. See her statement last July, retweeted by her yesterday after the China comment, and her appearance today on Morning JOe.

FEC doesn't have a quorum so they can't do anything

Yes, a GOP member quitting and the president and mcconnell conspiring not to replace will do that. She can still cite law, but prey tell, why do you favor a non-functional federal election commission?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Chairman of the Federal Election Commission for the past 19 years, originally appointed by Bush, thinks its a crime to ask a foreign country to investigate a political opponent. See her statement last July, retweeted by her yesterday after the China comment, and her appearance today on Morning JOe.

FEC doesn't have a quorum so they can't do anything

Yes, a GOP member quitting and the president and mcconnell conspiring not to replace will do that. She can still cite law, but prey tell, why do you favor a non-functional federal election commission?

Such a great question. Why is the GOP keeping the FEC from functioning?

WHY???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if there was no quid pro quo, why was the money withheld? Why did the Ukranians think there was a quid pro quo?

If agreement wasn’t a prerequisite for aid, that means aid would have been delivered even if they didn’t agree. So why hold up aid to begin with? That doesn’t add up. Trump’s own defense doesn’t make sense without a quid quo pro.

It sounds like some of these deep state bureaucrats were getting too far out over their skis. To put pressure on the Ukrainians, they may have said or implied a quid pro quo. But Trump never instructed them to do that.

These deep state bureaucrats are used to saying whatever they want under the assumption that no one is ever going to know. They could make any kind of threats or promises that they want to get the desired result. That doesn't mean it was ordered by Trump.

No, lack of a quid pro quo doesn't mean aid would have been delivered even if they didn't agree. It means the two things are not linked.

So the new argument is that he never explicitly directed them to do this? They should all go to jail but not him right? Because obviously what was done was highly wrong and illegal.

Actually, it wasn't illegal. That's why the Democrats don't know what to do with themselves. There's simply no legal prohibition against an American official, in this case the President, requesting assistance of a foreign government for investigations of crimes committed on foreign soil. Clearly the Obama Administration did that in the case of its investigations of the Trump campaign in 2016; assistance was sought, and received, from multiple foreign governments.

It's illegal to request "a thing of value" from a foreign government for campaign purposes. If you don't think that's illegal, why did Trump supporters say it was illegal when Hillary supposedly did it?

[Anonymous]

It's illegal to request "a thing of value" from a foreign government for campaign purposes. If you don't think that's illegal, why did Trump supporters say it was illegal when Hillary supposedly did it?

Asking for an investigation is not the same as paying foreign sources for fake dirt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's illegal to request "a thing of value" from a foreign government for campaign purposes. If you don't think that's illegal, why did Trump supporters say it was illegal when Hillary supposedly did it?

Asking for an investigation is not the same as paying foreign sources for fake dirt.

yep

"potus wants the deliverable"

[Anonymous]

CNN: EU ambassador Gordon Sondland is now scheduled to testify to three House committees on Tuesday, October 8th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's illegal to request "a thing of value" from a foreign government for campaign purposes. If you don't think that's illegal, why did Trump supporters say it was illegal when Hillary supposedly did it?

Asking for an investigation is not the same as paying foreign sources for fake dirt.

They illegally withheld congressionally appropriated funds until they received their thing of value. It is self evident and inarguable. Even Tucker Carlson said so.

More importantly, they extorted Ukraine into withdrawing from Dombass, ceding this important area to Putin.

How does that support American and its allies policy there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's illegal to request "a thing of value" from a foreign government for campaign purposes. If you don't think that's illegal, why did Trump supporters say it was illegal when Hillary supposedly did it?

Asking for an investigation is not the same as paying foreign sources for fake dirt.

They illegally withheld congressionally appropriated funds until they received their thing of value. It is self evident and inarguable. Even Tucker Carlson said so.

More importantly, they extorted Ukraine into withdrawing from Dombass, ceding this important area to Putin.

How does that support American and its allies policy there?

Also asked Ukraine to manufacture dirt


[7/25/19, 8:36:45 AM] Kurt Volker: Good lunch - thanks. Heard from White House—assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington. Good luck! See you tomorrow- kurt

"get to the bottom of what happened" = "make something up for us"

that combined with
I think potus really wants the deliverable.


They wanted fake dirt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's illegal to request "a thing of value" from a foreign government for campaign purposes. If you don't think that's illegal, why did Trump supporters say it was illegal when Hillary supposedly did it?

Asking for an investigation is not the same as paying foreign sources for fake dirt.

So.... it's A-OK for a candidate to pay a foreign national for information from Putin-connected Russians.... no problem with that.
But, asking a foreign government to look into corruption is impeachable.

The insanity of the left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Senator Johnson confirms Sonderland told the quid pro quo and people are STILL denying it, as if it detracts at all from the impeachable action, which Trump has not only admitted, but is basically defying any punishment for.

He is assuming the GOP won't remove him from office.

Burr, Sasse, Romney and now Johnson. That is four on the road to 30.

Johnson has confirmed that Sondland told him (Johnson) that the military aid was contingent on Zelensky investigating Biden. But he didn't say that he (Johnson) thinks that Trump should not do that or that he thinks it's a serious violation of his oath of office. Johnson also said he thinks it's fine for Trump to ask China to investigate Biden.

Nor did Sondland ever say that Trump told Sondland it was a quid pro quo. The opposite is true. These bureaucratic functionaries seem to frequently misrepresent their superiors' positions in an effort to get leverage in a negotiation. "Give me what I want because unless you do, you won't get what you want, and that's coming straight from the top." Except it wasn't.

That is ridiculous. The real diplomats were not demanding the investigations. They knew the investigations were bullshit. That demand was coming from Trump through Pompeo, Giuliani, and Sondland. Taylor and Volker and the Ukrainians only went along with the coerced quid because Ukraine badly needed the quo that Trump was holding up.

The only person who questioned whether there was a quid pro quo was Taylor, because he was afraid that Trump would renege on the quo once he got the quid.

"The nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)"

You just proved there wasn't a quid pro quo. Taylor was fearful there was not a quid pro quo. It was Taylor who promised the Ukrainians if they played ball they would get the arms, but he knew that was false, and was trying to cover his rear end by fabricating a quid pro quo in his communication to Sondland, which Sondland refuted.

You cannot possibly be that dumb. Trump, Giuliani, Pompeo, Barr, and Sondland are the extortion co-conspirators who wanted the investigations and made them the condition for releasing the military assistance and a Trump-Zelensky White House meeting. No one else cared about the investigations - not Taylor, not Volker, not the Ukrainians. Taylor wanted Ukraine to get the military assistance that we had promised them without the extortion but Trump held it back while his co-conspirators executed the criminal conspiracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's illegal to request "a thing of value" from a foreign government for campaign purposes. If you don't think that's illegal, why did Trump supporters say it was illegal when Hillary supposedly did it?

Asking for an investigation is not the same as paying foreign sources for fake dirt.

So.... it's A-OK for a candidate to pay a foreign national for information from Putin-connected Russians.... no problem with that.
But, asking a foreign government to look into corruption is impeachable.

The insanity of the left.

Did a candidate use congressional appropriated funds to pay for this foreign national?

[Anonymous]

I would not be surprised if Volker and Taylor alerted the whistleblower to this misconduct.

[Anonymous]

Can you not see the difference between a candidate doing opposition research and the president of the United States using the power of his office to solicit a criminal investigation of a political opponent from a foreign government?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you not see the difference between a candidate doing opposition research and the president of the United States using the power of his office to solicit a criminal investigation of a political opponent from a foreign government?

Some of them can, some of them can't. But either way, they'd prefer to troll than to admit it.