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.

omg the gaslighting continues

Sorry, we can read.

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.

Late Friday afternoon subpoenas are the best.

https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=718

During a press conference on Wednesday, President Trump was asked if he would cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry. He responded, ‘I always cooperate.’ President Trump’s claim is patently false. The White House has refused to engage with—or even respond to—multiple requests for documents from our Committees on a voluntary basis. After nearly a month of stonewalling, it appears clear that the President has chosen the path of defiance, obstruction, and cover-up,” the Chairmen 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.

Really? What statute does she think would be violated?

So, let's say Bernie Sanders goes to France and starts raping and murdering people. She thinks it's a crime for the President of the U.S. to ask France to investigate those crimes because Sanders happens to be a political opponent of the President?

Interesting logic.

stahp

The committees investigating the President have now sent a subpoena to the White House, along with this letter.
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-10-04.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20to%20Mulvaney-WH%20re%20Subpoena.pdf

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.

Really? What statute does she think would be violated?

So, let's say Bernie Sanders goes to France and starts raping and murdering people. She thinks it's a crime for the President of the U.S. to ask France to investigate those crimes because Sanders happens to be a political opponent of the President?

Interesting logic.

The statute is cited at the bottom of her letter.

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.

Really? What statute does she think would be violated?

So, let's say Bernie Sanders goes to France and starts raping and murdering people. She thinks it's a crime for the President of the U.S. to ask France to investigate those crimes because Sanders happens to be a political opponent of the President?

Interesting logic.

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.

Wait, in your hypothetical, is sondland a deep state beaurocrat? Because he was a political appointee who got the EU gig after giving $$$$ to the inauguration fund (for ivanka to embezzle but bear with me).

Yet he was the one who said on Aug 9, 5:47 pm, after being asked by volker ("excellent! How did you sway him?") , Sondland replied, "Not sure I did. But I think potus really wants the deliverable." To which Volker replied: "But does he know that?"

So forgive the confusion but are you going with the "trump really wanted other countries to support ukraine more" thing or the "ukraine needs to prosecute correction thing" - just trying to understand what you are putting out here that the "deep state beaurocrats" got "over their skis" misunderstood.

It is hard to keep up with the GOP spin and I'm sure it is hard to spin it when the president goes on air or twitter and comes up with a new story that contradicts the last story every few hours. Thoughts and prayers for you.

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.

Wow, you guys are making poor Occam slit his wrists. Don’t expend so much of your energy trying to shoot down these pieces of evidence, there will be many, many more.

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

The FBI still seems to be functioning, though.

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.

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

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.

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.

Jeez, man. Get some dignity.

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.