Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo."

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by American87 View Post

    He said there wasn't. And no I didn't watch it today, I have work and stuff to do. But I'm confident then when I find out what happened, there was no quid pro quo. As Sondland said.
    Then you missed his testimony. You don't know what happened and yet you're passing judgment on it? Good grief.
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Massena View Post

      Then you missed his testimony. You don't know what happened and yet you're passing judgment on it? Good grief.
      Yeah he said Trump wanted no quid pro quo. This is boring. Get back to me with Russian Collusion.
      "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

      "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by American87 View Post

        Yes, and Trump said he wanted no quid pro quo. That was his official policy statement to Sondland, per Sondland's testimony. So where's the quid pro quo? Someone must know about it, if the Democrats are saying it exists, right? Wrong. Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, and the transcript of the actual phone call said there was no quid pro quo. The whole reason there's an investigation is because the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, said there was quid pro quo on the phone call. But he was fired from the National Security Council for lying, and the transcript proves he was wrong again. He wasn't even listening on the phone call, he just heard about it from someone. So there's no quid pro quo. The entire investigation is a shameless coup attempt by the Democrats.
        And I said that Trump said this after the announcement of the House investigations. Yes, the official policy changed when Trump realized that he had been exposed. That is why he also released the military aid on September 11. Sondland simply testified that Trump did not explicitly tell him to go and offer an illegal quid pro quo. But Sondland and others testified under oath that based on the things they know today, it was obvious that Burisma investigations were about Biden. Today, Bolton's adviser said the same thing. Sondland also testified that Trump directed him to talk to Guiliani about the Ukrainian issue. So, Guiliani's demands are also expressing the will of the president.
        Last edited by pamak; 21 Nov 19, 17:24.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by pamak View Post

          And I said that Trump said this after the announcement of the House investigations. Yes, the official policy changed when Trump realized that he had been exposed. That is why he also released the military aid on September 11. Sondland simply testified that Trump did not explicitly tell him to go and offer an illegal quid pro quo. But Sondland and others testified under oath that based on the things they know today, it was obvious that Burisma investigations were about Biden. Today, Bolton's adviser said the same thing.
          What do you mean when you say the Burisma investigations were about Biden? Do you mean the Ukrainian investigation that Biden shut down, or do you mean Trump asking Zelinksy to investigate Biden’s role in shutting down the original investigation?

          And yes, we both seem to agree that Trumps official policy was to have no quid pro quo. So where is it? Where is the evidence for the quid pro quo the left is talking about? What grounds did they have for launching the investigation in the first place?
          "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

          "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by American87 View Post

            What do you mean when you say the Burisma investigations were about Biden? Do you mean the Ukrainian investigation that Biden shut down, or do you mean Trump asking Zelinksy to investigate Biden’s role in shutting down the original investigation?

            And yes, we both seem to agree that Trumps official policy was to have no quid pro quo. So where is it? Where is the evidence for the quid pro quo the left is talking about? What grounds did they have for launching the investigation in the first place?
            I mean that Trump's and Guiliani's demand that the Ukrainians should make a public statement about investigating Burisma were tied to the expectation that such demand could be used by the Trump Campaign to attack Biden.
            We agree that the official policy of no quid pro quo changed after the attempt of soliciting quid pro quo was exposed. Up until then, it was obvious that there were two policies. One official and one unofficial led by Trump's personal lawyer. As Hill said it today,

            https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/polit...ump/index.html

            "He [Sondland] was being involved in a domestic political errand. And we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged," she said.
            "I had not put my finger on that at the moment, but I was irritated with him and angry with him that he wasn't fully coordinating," she went on. "And I did say to him, 'Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, I think this is all going to blow up.' And here we are."


            The above comes from Bolton's senior adviser.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by pamak View Post
              " "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo."

              equals


              "I am not a crook" (Nixon's statement for the foreigners who may miss the allusion)
              It looks like you are the one making up the "allusion"

              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by American87 View Post

                Yeah he said Trump wanted no quid pro quo. This is boring. Get back to me with Russian Collusion.
                It is certainly interesting, and perhaps historically and politically relevant, that “birther” advocacy may have originated with supporters of Hillary Clinton — especially since many view it as an exclusively right-wing movement. But whether those theories were advocated by Clinton and/or her campaign or simply by Clinton “supporters” is an important distinction. Candidates are expected to be held accountable for the actions of their campaigns. Neither Cruz nor Trump, whose campaign did not respond to our request for backup material, provides any compelling evidence that either Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with starting the so-called birther movement.


                — Robert Farley
                Factchek.org
                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                  It is certainly interesting, and perhaps historically and politically relevant, that “birther” advocacy may have originated with supporters of Hillary Clinton — especially since many view it as an exclusively right-wing movement. But whether those theories were advocated by Clinton and/or her campaign or simply by Clinton “supporters” is an important distinction. Candidates are expected to be held accountable for the actions of their campaigns. Neither Cruz nor Trump, whose campaign did not respond to our request for backup material, provides any compelling evidence that either Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with starting the so-called birther movement.


                  — Robert Farley
                  Factchek.org
                  I think you're in the wrong thread, and a different dimension.
                  "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                  "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by pamak View Post

                    I mean that Trump's and Guiliani's demand that the Ukrainians should make a public statement about investigating Burisma were tied to the expectation that such demand could be used by the Trump Campaign to attack Biden.
                    We agree that the official policy of no quid pro quo changed after the attempt of soliciting quid pro quo was exposed. Up until then, it was obvious that there were two policies. One official and one unofficial led by Trump's personal lawyer. As Hill said it today,

                    https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/polit...ump/index.html

                    "He [Sondland] was being involved in a domestic political errand. And we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged," she said.
                    "I had not put my finger on that at the moment, but I was irritated with him and angry with him that he wasn't fully coordinating," she went on. "And I did say to him, 'Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, I think this is all going to blow up.' And here we are."


                    The above comes from Bolton's senior adviser.
                    Trump's policy never changed. You're insinuating that Trump wanted a quid pro quo, but that he changed his stance once the investigation started. That's like saying "Pamak, do you beat your wife?" Obviously you're taken aback, because you never beat your wife, and you never felt the need to provide evidence of it until now. How can you even prove it? It's bs. So there's no evidence of Trump ever wanting quid pro quo, and Sondland says Trump's policy as of September 9 was no quid pro quo. So where is the evidence that he ever wanted quid pro quo in the first place? There is none. That's the whole point. There was never any evidence.

                    And supposedly, yes, if Biden were engaged in corrupt behavior, that could be used during the presidential campaign. But Trump asking for that information is not illegal. It would only be illegal if Trump offered payment for it. And the question isn't even if he paid for it, but if he tied aid money to the request, which he didn't. Neither Sondland nor the Ukrainians were aware of any such arrangment, and the money went through without Trump receiving any favor in return.
                    "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                    "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by American87 View Post

                      Trump's policy never changed. You're insinuating that Trump wanted a quid pro quo, but that he changed his stance once the investigation started. That's like saying "Pamak, do you beat your wife?" Obviously you're taken aback, because you never beat your wife, and you never felt the need to provide evidence of it until now. How can you even prove it? It's bs. So there's no evidence of Trump ever wanting quid pro quo, and Sondland says Trump's policy as of September 9 was no quid pro quo. So where is the evidence that he ever wanted quid pro quo in the first place? There is none. That's the whole point. There was never any evidence.

                      And supposedly, yes, if Biden were engaged in corrupt behavior, that could be used during the presidential campaign. But Trump asking for that information is not illegal. It would only be illegal if Trump offered payment for it. And the question isn't even if he paid for it, but if he tied aid money to the request, which he didn't. Neither Sondland nor the Ukrainians were aware of any such arrangment, and the money went through without Trump receiving any favor in return.
                      Well, the fact say otherwise:

                      The military aid was released after the announcement of the House investigation.
                      And it was clear that up until that time even diplomats tasked with negotiating with the Ukranians were left in the dark about Trump's phonecall with Zelensky and the "favor" he asked there in connection to the Bidens.

                      If Biden was engaged in corrupt behavior, the DOJ and the FBI could cooperate with the Ukrainians instead of having Ukrainians and US diplomats forced to cooperate with Guiliani.. And Guliani and his indicted Ukrainian associates would not be able to destroy the careers of professional diplomats who were giving warnings about the credibility of people who were feeding Guiliani with conspiracy theories.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by pamak View Post

                        Well, the fact say otherwise:

                        The military aid was released after the announcement of the House investigation.
                        And it was clear that up until that time even diplomats tasked with negotiating with the Ukranians were left in the dark about Trump's phonecall with Zelensky and the "favor" he asked there in connection to the Bidens.

                        If Biden was engaged in corrupt behavior, the DOJ and the FBI could cooperate with the Ukrainians instead of having Ukrainians and US diplomats forced to cooperate with Guiliani.. And Guliani and his indicted Ukrainian associates would not be able to destroy the careers of professional diplomats who were giving warnings about the credibility of people who were feeding Guiliani with conspiracy theories.
                        So there's no evidence that Trump wanted quid pro quo. Sondland even said Trump's official policy was to have no quid pro quo.

                        What does Guiliana have to do with this? Trump asked Zelinsky to look into the Biden incient. As I understand it, Trump had Guiliani handle correspondence or something. Ok, so what? That's perfectly legal. The only way it is illegal is if Trump paid foreign nationals for research on a political opponenent. That never happened. The Democrats just want a pretext to impeach Trump. They can impeach him at any time, because that's their Constitutional right. But the Republicans won't convict him in the Senate, because the whole thing is stupid. In order for the Republicans to convict, the Democrats need hard evidence that Trump did something worthy of impeachment, or public opinion polls need to be so anti-Trump that even Republicans have to convict. That's what this is about: spreading rumor in the hopes that the public turns against Trump.

                        "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                        "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by American87 View Post

                          So there's no evidence that Trump wanted quid pro quo. Sondland even said Trump's official policy was to have no quid pro quo.

                          What does Guiliana have to do with this? Trump asked Zelinsky to look into the Biden incient. As I understand it, Trump had Guiliani handle correspondence or something. Ok, so what? That's perfectly legal. The only way it is illegal is if Trump paid foreign nationals for research on a political opponenent. That never happened. The Democrats just want a pretext to impeach Trump. They can impeach him at any time, because that's their Constitutional right. But the Republicans won't convict him in the Senate, because the whole thing is stupid. In order for the Republicans to convict, the Democrats need hard evidence that Trump did something worthy of impeachment, or public opinion polls need to be so anti-Trump that even Republicans have to convict. That's what this is about: spreading rumor in the hopes that the public turns against Trump.
                          Of course there IS plenty and strong evidence of Trump wanting a quid pro quo which is different from the claim that Trump did not explicitly mentioned it. And the law of bribery makes it clear that even an INDIRECT demand is still illegal

                          https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...es#post5152094

                          (b)Whoever—

                          (2)being a
                          public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
                          (A)
                          being influenced in the performance of any
                          official act;

                          Guiliani is at the center of this at the direction of Trump. Trump also asked Zelinksi during the phone call to talk to Guiiani. Also, as Sondland said, when the president told Sondland to talk to Guiliani, then whatever Sondland heard from Guilianiregarding the things Ukrainians need to do in order to get a WH meeting with Trump is presumed to come from Trump himself
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            Of course there IS plenty and strong evidence of Trump wanting a quid pro quo
                            You should give this "strong evidence" to the democrats. They haven't been able to find it.

                            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                              You should give this "strong evidence" to the democrats. They haven't been able to find it.
                              Trump gave it to them with the transcript. The same is true with Trump's chief of staff and Guiliani who talked in public about what they were trying to accomplish

                              Volker who was supposedly a witness called by the republicans described how he was unaware about the mentioning of Bidens in the phonecall

                              https://apnews.com/5efa7ff2af78438e96d4126557999d04

                              During his testimony, Volker said he saw Burisma and Biden as separate.

                              “I did not understand that others believed that any investigation of the Ukrainian company, Burisma, which had a history of accusations of corruption, was tantamount to investigating Vice President Biden. I drew a distinction between the two.”

                              “In retrospect I should have seen that connection differently, and had I done so, I would have raised my own objections,” Volker testified.
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by American87 View Post

                                Yeah he said Trump wanted no quid pro quo. This is boring. Get back to me with Russian Collusion.
                                Ohhh, Laddie. You want to believe in the man's EVERY word , even though he
                                Bulled it out his rump for four years with his birther nonsense.
                                2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html


                                Rather TOUCHING, - LIKE BEING IN AN O. Henry STORY.....
                                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                • casanova
                                  Adults Rashid Dostur
                                  by casanova
                                  The Warlord Abdul Rashid Dostur came back to Afghanistan and was promoted to military marshal by the Afghanian president Ashraf Ghani. ...
                                  Today, 00:48
                                • casanova
                                  Alouette III
                                  by casanova
                                  The military helicopter Alouette Iii will be staioned off duty in 1923 because of oldness by the Austrian airforce. The Austrian airfoce wants to buy...
                                  Today, 00:22
                                • casanova
                                  Israel Army
                                  by casanova
                                  The Israelian Army stationed all airdefencesystens, tanks and soldiers on the Liban and Syrian border. The Iran wants to attack Israel. Arabian terrorists...
                                  Yesterday, 23:15
                                Working...
                                X