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

  • #91
    Thank you for the gratuitous ad hominem.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Thank you for the gratuitous ad hominem.
      And thank you for not knowing how to to calculate averages.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by American87 View Post

        What is the strong evidence? Since you're the only person who has it, you should probably run down to D.C. and tell Schiff. Maybe you can be in one of those private interrogations.
        The transcript and the conduct and public statements of Guiiani and the chief of staff and the people who DIRECTLY worked with them such as Sondland make it clear that there were two policies pursued at the time. There was one official in which there was a "favor" to have the Ukrainians investigate Burisma and the 2016 conspiracy theories, and an unofficial one in which Burisma was a code word for investigating the Bidens. Hill (Bolton's senior adviser and career professional) was 100% correct, and she testified under oath that

        But it struck me when yesterday, when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland’s emails, and who was on these emails and he said “These that these people need to know,” that he was absolutely right. Because he 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. So he was correct.

        And 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. And I did say to him, Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, I think this is all going to blow up. And here we are.


        And time after time we hear witnesses say that they had not connected the dots at the time to realize that Burisma meant Biden but now, after understanding the background information that was provided by other diplomats AND by Trump with his released transcripts (after the whistleblower revealed their content), they do understand that this was all about Biden and not about fighting corruption in Ukraine.

        In fact, Volker under oath testified that he encouraged the new government NOT TO go after the previous president because such thing would not help bring the country together. And the Ukrainians, again according to the testimonies we heard noticed the irony of having the Americans telling them not to go after their guys while they were encouraging them to go after Clinton and Biden!
        Last edited by pamak; 22 Nov 19, 19:53.
        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


        • #94
          Originally posted by pamak View Post

          The transcript and the conduct and public statements of Guiiani and the chief of staff and the people who DIRECTLY worked with them such as Sondland make it clear that there ere two policies pursued at the time. There was one official in which there was a "favor" to have the Ukrainians investigate Burisma and the 2016 conspiracy theories, and an unofficial one in which Burisma was a code word for investigating the Bidens
          I'm not sure what you're talking about. The issue is whether or not Trump sought a quid pro qup with Zelinksy. That would possibly be illegal and would be the strongest article for impeachment. But there is no evidence that Trump sought a quid pro quo. So when you say "there is strong evidence," I'm not sure what you mean. Do you have evidence of quid pro quo? This stuff about two policies isn't making sense to me; I'm not sure what you're getting at.
          "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

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

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by American87 View Post

            I'm not sure what you're talking about. The issue is whether or not Trump sought a quid pro qup with Zelinksy. That would possibly be illegal and would be the strongest article for impeachment. But there is no evidence that Trump sought a quid pro quo. So when you say "there is strong evidence," I'm not sure what you mean. Do you have evidence of quid pro quo? This stuff about two policies isn't making sense to me; I'm not sure what you're getting at.
            See previous post
            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


            • #96
              And again copying the part of Volker's testimony regarding his team's exchange with the Ukrainians


              https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment...rrison-testify

              Kurt Volker: (01:17:22)
              I’m very familiar with other examples of countries in the region that have gone for prosecutions of the former government, and these have created deep divisions in society. And so I cited President Zelensky’s inauguration speech … I’m sorry … his National Day speech from August 24th that was all about unifying the country.
              And I cautioned Mr. Yermak to say that pursuing of President Poroshenko risks deepening the divisions in the country, exactly the opposite of what President Zelensky has said he wants to do.

              Mike Quigley: (
              01:17:59)
              So it’s fair to describe it as you discouraged him from such actions.

              Kurt Volker: (
              01:18:03)
              Yeah, I discouraged him. I raised concerns about what the potential impact would be.

              Mike Quigley: (01:18:08)
              And what was Mr. Yermak’s response?

              Kurt Volker: (
              01:18:11)
              I believe, and I’m refreshed in this by seeing the testimony of others.

              Mike Quigley: (
              01:18:15)
              Mr. Taylor.

              Kurt Volker: (
              01:18:16)
              Mr. Taylor’s testimony.

              Mike Quigley: (
              01:18:17)
              Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent.

              Kurt Volker: (
              01:18:19)
              Right, and I believe, based on that testimony, that Mr. Yermak said, “Well, what, you mean like asking us to investigate Clinton and Biden?”


              Last edited by pamak; 22 Nov 19, 19:35.
              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


              • #97
                and if you want more evidence that Trump was cooking a corrupt deal, you can also see

                1 that the DOJ has issued a statement that Trump did NOT ask Barr to investigate the Bidens or talk to the Ukrainians or Guiliani.

                2 Trump had no problem to meet in the WH with some of the most corrupt leaders in the world like the Saudi Prince (after he ordered the butchering of a US permanent resident and WaPo journalist) and Erdogan.

                3 that Trump had a problem to express his policy towards Ukraine and even the Pentagon did not know why the aid was frozen, and Trump had a problem with communicating accurately the content of the phone call he had with Zelensky and even the diplomats who were tasked with communicating with the Ukrainians did not know that Biden had been named during that phone call. In fact, the transcript was put in one of the most secure servers that the administration had

                4 that Guiliani was insisting that the Ukrainians should give a public statement to do a specific investigation in order to get a WH meeting (even in the US the FBI does not publicly announce details of its investigations)

                5 we have information from an eye witness who was Bolton's top assistant (so no Obama or Clinton stooge) who HEARD her boss saying while he as the señor National Security Advisor in the Trump administration that this was a "drug deal"



                I can find a dozen more other things which in totality can be explained in only one way: that Trump sought with corrupt intend to get a thing of value from the Ukrainians for his 2020 campaign in exchange of influencing the performance of an official act such as the military aid and a WH meeting which bring back the language of the specific federal statute about the bribing of a government official

                18 U.S. Code § 201.Bribery of public officials and witnesses

                (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
                ;
                ...


                shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of
                value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
                Last edited by pamak; 22 Nov 19, 20:31.
                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


                • #98
                  Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                  To be fair, I doubt Trump understands what a QPQ is.

                  Here's an example of what Trump did but with a Mob boss in his place.
                  "I want you to do me a favor about this John Smith guy, heard terrible things, very problematic. Do what you can, but I want "no murder.""

                  Murder happens, Trump didn't ask for murder, read the call! He said "no murder."
                  The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by American87 View Post

                    The entire investigation is a shameless coup attempt by the Democrats.
                    Really, you and others have been screaming "coup attempt" for months like you've been trying to work a 100.000 people crowd into a blind frenzy.
                    Check what a coup attempt is. Many countries have practical experience with "coup attempts".

                    It is a great comedy of fools, an amusement park. The US political scene, and Brexit, have provided the greatest entertainment for the past three years.
                    **** loads of time, energy and money have been and still are being wasted though for purely personal-political goals, and not for the good of your country.

                    "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      The transcript and the conduct and public statements of Guiiani and the chief of staff and the people who DIRECTLY worked with them such as Sondland make it clear that there were two policies pursued at the time. There was one official in which there was a "favor" to have the Ukrainians investigate Burisma and the 2016 conspiracy theories, and an unofficial one in which Burisma was a code word for investigating the Bidens. Hill (Bolton's senior adviser and career professional) was 100% correct, and she testified under oath that

                      But it struck me when yesterday, when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland’s emails, and who was on these emails and he said “These that these people need to know,” that he was absolutely right. Because he 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. So he was correct.

                      And 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. And I did say to him, Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, I think this is all going to blow up. And here we are.


                      And time after time we hear witnesses say that they had not connected the dots at the time to realize that Burisma meant Biden but now, after understanding the background information that was provided by other diplomats AND by Trump with his released transcripts (after the whistleblower revealed their content), they do understand that this was all about Biden and not about fighting corruption in Ukraine.

                      In fact, Volker under oath testified that he encouraged the new government NOT TO go after the previous president because such thing would not help bring the country together. And the Ukrainians, again according to the testimonies we heard noticed the irony of having the Americans telling them not to go after their guys while they were encouraging them to go after Clinton and Biden!
                      The whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, did not reveal the contents of the phone call. He was not on the phone call, and he was fired from the National Security Council for lying. He said Trump offered a quid pro quo agreement on the phone call. How would he know, since he wasn't on the call? The answer is, he didn't know. Trump released the transncript, and there was nothing close to a quid pro quo. He used the word "favor" when talking about Crowdstrike, and he didn't even mention giving something in return. In general parlance, a "favor" is an act of generosity where you don't receive something in return.

                      And we know Trump was interested in Biden. That's in the transcript. He asked Zelinsky to look into Biden's pressuing Ukraine to fire the prosecutor. Biden wanted to fire the prosecutor that was looking into Burisma, and who said the investigation was active at the time Biden applied the pressure.

                      In short, Trump asked Zelinksy to investigate possible corruption on the part of Joe Biden, and there never was or is evidence that he sought a quid pro quo.
                      "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by American87 View Post

                        The whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, did not reveal the contents of the phone call. He was not on the phone call, and he was fired from the National Security Council for lying. He said Trump offered a quid pro quo agreement on the phone call. How would he know, since he wasn't on the call? The answer is, he didn't know. Trump released the transncript, and there was nothing close to a quid pro quo. He used the word "favor" when talking about Crowdstrike, and he didn't even mention giving something in return. In general parlance, a "favor" is an act of generosity where you don't receive something in return.

                        And we know Trump was interested in Biden. That's in the transcript. He asked Zelinsky to look into Biden's pressuing Ukraine to fire the prosecutor. Biden wanted to fire the prosecutor that was looking into Burisma, and who said the investigation was active at the time Biden applied the pressure.

                        In short, Trump asked Zelinksy to investigate possible corruption on the part of Joe Biden, and there never was or is evidence that he sought a quid pro quo.
                        I am not accepting your claims about the identity of the whistleblower. I also do not accept the claim that the whistleblower did not reveal the content of the phone call. He certainly did and very accurately because he had access to people who DID listen to the phone-call. This is the reason why Vindman was instructed not to answer the question about the identity of the intelligence officer with whom he communicated. Trump HAD to release the transcript sooner or later after he was caught! And that there is a quid pro quo is a statement that came from the people who worked directly with Trump, including Sondland and his chief of staff.

                        Yes, we know that Trump was interested in Biden ONLY because Trump had to release the transcripts AFTER the whistleblower complaint. Until then, the people who work with him testified that they did not know this and they separated investigations of Burisma from investigations of Hunter. Joe Biden wanted what the US government at the time and the rest of the western world wanted. There is nothing to suggest suspicious motives in this behavior. On the other hand, asking Ukrainians to investigate Biden but not asking the DOJ and Barr to collaborate with them shows that Trump knew he had no legal justification or input for the investigations he sought from Ukrainians in exchange for the WH meeting and the foreign aid.

                        In short, you have not followed the testimonies and you repeat nonsense talking points from the Deepshit right wing press. This is the term I will use from now on to describe the type of media which loves to call professional diplomats "Deep State."

                        Last edited by pamak; 23 Nov 19, 19:11.
                        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


                        • Originally posted by pamak View Post
                          and if you want more evidence that Trump was cooking a corrupt deal, you can also see

                          1 that the DOJ has issued a statement that Trump did NOT ask Barr to investigate the Bidens or talk to the Ukrainians or Guiliani.

                          2 Trump had no problem to meet in the WH with some of the most corrupt leaders in the world like the Saudi Prince (after he ordered the butchering of a US permanent resident and WaPo journalist) and Erdogan.

                          3 that Trump had a problem to express his policy towards Ukraine and even the Pentagon did not know why the aid was frozen, and Trump had a problem with communicating accurately the content of the phone call he had with Zelensky and even the diplomats who were tasked with communicating with the Ukrainians did not know that Biden had been named during that phone call. In fact, the transcript was put in one of the most secure servers that the administration had

                          4 that Guiliani was insisting that the Ukrainians should give a public statement to do a specific investigation in order to get a WH meeting (even in the US the FBI does not publicly announce details of its investigations)

                          5 we have information from an eye witness who was Bolton's top assistant (so no Obama or Clinton stooge) who HEARD her boss saying while he as the señor National Security Advisor in the Trump administration that this was a "drug deal"



                          I can find a dozen more other things which in totality can be explained in only one way: that Trump sought with corrupt intend to get a thing of value from the Ukrainians for his 2020 campaign in exchange of influencing the performance of an official act such as the military aid and a WH meeting which bring back the language of the specific federal statute about the bribing of a government official

                          18 U.S. Code § 201.Bribery of public officials and witnesses

                          (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
                          ;
                          ...


                          shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of
                          value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
                          You need to find those other dozen things. You forget that Trump is head of the executive branch, and he doesn't need to tell the Pentagon or his entire staff of bureaucrats what his policies are. That's the whole point. The Executive sets foreign policy, and he decides who needs to know. Anyone who is upset that Trump doesn't share his policies with them is just a disgruntled and unprofessional employee.

                          So, to break down your points:

                          1.)So what?

                          2.) Saudi Arabia is an American ally. Our job is to work with other countries. America is a great country that doesn't oppress it's people (except maybe when the Democrats do). Some people don't like working with Saudi Arabia or Erdogan, but they need to accept that we have to work with countries that don't have our values.

                          3.) So what? They never had the right to now. They are disgruntled and unprofessional for complaining about it. Or, if they are just saying this as a matter of fact, then fine.

                          4.) Do you have the actual testimoney where this is said? That is, a first-hand witness saying that Guiliana demanded the press release in exchange for a White House meeting? I know that Guiliani wanted a press release, but several liberal news sites have not posted the actual exchange. Sondland appears to have called it a "quid pro quo" without actually seeing/hearing Guiliana hold the press realease out as an explicit prerequisite to the meeting.

                          5.) That's way too vague to mean anything.
                          "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            I am not accepting your claims about the identity of the whistleblower. I also do not accept the claim that the whistleblower did not reveal the content of the phone call. He certainly did and very accurately because he had access to people who DID listen to the phone-call. This is the reason why Vindman was instructed not to answer the question about the identity of the intelligence officer with whom he communicated. Trump HAD to release the transcript sooner or later after he was caught! And that there is a quid pro quo is a statement that came from the people who worked directly with Trump, including Sondland and his chief of staff.

                            Yes, we know that Trump was interested in Biden ONLY because Trump had to release the transcripts AFTER the whistleblower complaint. Until then, the people who work with him testified that they did not know this and they separated investigations of Burisma from investigations of Hunter. Joe Biden wanted what the US government at the time and the rest of the western world wanted. There is nothing to suggest suspicious motives in this behavior. On the other hand, asking Ukrainians to investigate Biden but not asking the DOJ and Barr to collaborate with them shows that Trump knew he had no legal justification or input for the investigations he sought from Ukrainians in exchange for the WH meeting and the foreign aid.

                            In short, you have not followed the testimonies and you repeat nonsense talking points from the Deepshit right wing press. This is the term I will use from now on to describe the type of media which loves to call professional diplomats "Deep State."
                            Where is the quid pro quo in the phone call? Point it out. Sondland said there was a quid pro quo relating to Guiliani, but he seems to have left the details out. He said Trump's policy was to have no quid pro quo. Again, there is no evidence that Trump wanted a quid pro quo. You can't point it out, and you're left with all these second hand testimonies and opinions that have nothing to do with the original claims of quid pro quo. There is no evidence of wrong doing. Just post the evidence and stop citing all these second-hand accounts.

                            And yes, the whistleblower was wrong. He was not on the phone call, and as everyone in the media knows, Eric Ciaramella, the whistleblower, was fired from the National Security Council for lying. So Trump released the transcript to show that the whistleblower was wrong. Why would he keep it secret and let people believe all that garbage about him?

                            Biden pressured Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was reportedly investigating his son's company. Thats suspicious imo. You may believe otherwise, and we'll have to disagree here.

                            You're also making things up when you said Trump tied foreign aid to the investigation. Even Sondland said that wasn't the case. There is no evidence in your posts that Trump did anything controversial. THe whol thing started over a fake whisteblower complaint, which Schiff has not been able to substantiate since he started investigation.
                            "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by American87 View Post

                              You need to find those other dozen things. You forget that Trump is head of the executive branch, and he doesn't need to tell the Pentagon or his entire staff of bureaucrats what his policies are. That's the whole point. The Executive sets foreign policy, and he decides who needs to know. Anyone who is upset that Trump doesn't share his policies with them is just a disgruntled and unprofessional employee.

                              So, to break down your points:

                              1.)So what?

                              2.) Saudi Arabia is an American ally. Our job is to work with other countries. America is a great country that doesn't oppress it's people (except maybe when the Democrats do). Some people don't like working with Saudi Arabia or Erdogan, but they need to accept that we have to work with countries that don't have our values.

                              3.) So what? They never had the right to now. They are disgruntled and unprofessional for complaining about it. Or, if they are just saying this as a matter of fact, then fin
                              4.) Do you have the actual testimoney where this is said? That is, a first-hand witness saying that Guiliana demanded the press release in exchange for a White House meeting? I know that Guiliani wanted a press release, but several liberal news sites have not posted the actual exchange. Sondland appears to have called it a "quid pro quo" without actually seeing/hearing Guiliana hold the press realease out as an explicit prerequisite to the meeting.

                              5.) That's way too vague to mean anything.
                              1 So, it makes zero sense to fantasize a genuine desire by Trump to battle corruption when he does not feel the need to inform the DOJ and the AG about his concerns

                              2.Saudi Arabia is also corrupt. And Ukraine is a friendly country to us. It makes zero sense to have a POTUS claiming that he is more worried about corruption in Ukraine than about corruption within our allies. One American dollar worth the same whether the recipient is a formal ally or not.

                              3. They had a NEED to know in order to cooperate effectively with the president. The fact that Trump did not seem to think so is evidence of his state of mind and corrupt intend to arrange deals in secrecy. There is no other reasonable explanation of such behavior

                              4.Yes! Read the transcripts of the public hearings.
                              For example, Sondland wh heard the presiden telling him to "talk to Rudy" and who DID interact with Rudi, said:


                              Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election, DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States and we knew these investigations were important to the president.

                              And by the way, the law as I posted does not require an explicit quid pro quo. Notice that the law includes the words "direct" and "indirect." From the Code that I cited earlier:

                              ...directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept ...in return for:
                              (A)
                              being influenced in the performance of any official act;


                              In any case, the transcript is clear that Trump directly sought from Zelensky an investigation of the Bidens even though Trump at the same time had not asked the DOJ and Barr to participate with the Ukrainians in such investigation

                              5. If someone calls a deal a "drug deal" it is not vague at all. And when Bolton told Hill to talk to the attorney or when Bolton said that Guiliani was like a hand grenade that will explode on their face, it is evidence that Bolton did not see the deal as a legal one.
                              Last edited by pamak; 23 Nov 19, 20:33.
                              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


                              • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                                1 So, it makes zero sense to fantasize a genuine desire by Trump to battle corruption when he does not feel the need to inform the DOJ and the AG about his concerns

                                2.Saudi Arabia is also corrupt. And Ukraine is a friendly country to us. It makes zero sense to have a POTUS claiming that he is more worried about corruption in Ukraine than about corruption within our allies. One American dollar worth the same whether the recipient is a formal ally or not.

                                3. They had a NEED to know in order to cooperate effectively with the president. The fact that Trump did not seem to think so is evidence of his state of mind and corrupt intend to arrange deals in secrecy. There is no other reasonable explanation of such behavior

                                4.Yes! Read the transcripts of the public hearings.
                                For example, Sondland wh heard the presiden telling him to "talk to Rudy" and who DID interact with Rudi, said:


                                Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election, DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States and we knew these investigations were important to the president.

                                And by the way, the law as I posted does not require an explicit quid pro quo. Notice that the law includes the words "direct" and "indirect." From the Code that I cited earlier:

                                ...directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept ...in return for:
                                (A)
                                being influenced in the performance of any official act;


                                In any case, the transcript is clear that Trump directly sought from Zelensky an investigation of the Bidens even though Trump at the same time had not asked the DOJ and Barr to participate with the Ukrainians in such investigation

                                5. If someone calls a deal a "drug deal" it is not vague at all. And when Bolton told Hill to talk to the attorney or when Bolton said that Guiliani was like a hand grenade that will explode on their face, it is evidence that Bolton did not see the deal as a legal one.
                                1.) If Trump wanted to dig up political dirt on Biden, he could have asked the DOJ to launch an investigation. That would be much more effective than asking Ukraine to investigate, then asking Ukraine to make a public statement. The fact is, Trump asked Ukraine to investigate, and any speculation into his motives is just speculation.

                                2.) And Obama was kind to our Saudi allies, and both parties agreed with it. Now that Trump is doing the same thing, the TDSers are having a fit. Nothing to see here. And Trump is not claiming he's more concerned about corruption in the Ukraine than in Saudi Arabia. He's interested in possible corruption on the part of Joe Biden while serving as Vice President.

                                3.) They have no need to know. Trump is fully capable of conducting foreign relations on his own. It's legal and has merit. Look at North Korea: the Swamp was against Trump's actions, and now they've destroyed their missle sites. Trump is doing fine with Ukraine. Maybe the Swamp is mad, because they sided with Obama's policy to not give aid to Ukraine. So Trump does what presidents do, and the liberal bureaucracy is butthurt. Nothing to see here but TDS.

                                4.) Sondland never says he was a witness to quid pro quo. He says Guiliani wanted a public statement. Fine. When did Guiliani ever tie this to the meeting? Sondland doesn't say. He's offering his opinion, not first-hand evidence.

                                5.) Ok, so you believe Trump was dealing drugs with Ukraine? And Bolton never talked about legality. He might have meant a political hand grenade, as in the TDSers would have a fit in the media. And he was wrong: Trump's poll numbers have increased as a result of the impeachment inquiry.
                                "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

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

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X