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

  • Originally posted by American87 View Post

    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.
    As I said it is the totality of the evidence which reveal the quid pro quo and I did give in the previous post Sondland's testimony about the presence of such quid pro quo. And no, Sondland is not a second hand source. He was directly involved in the negotiations and spoke with Guiliani after the president told him to "talk to Rudy."

    Sorry, but it is your claim that this Eric Ciaramella was the whistleblower.

    Your opinion is weak when you cannot back it up with reasoning. I explained that Hunter was a CEO and a lawyer who was a member of the board of directors and in charge of the legal affairs. If his position and link to the Vice President is enough to establish a reasonable suspicion that can trigger a government investigation then all lobbyists in the US should be investigated for the contracts their companies get together with the lawmakers who are linked to them. You still have failed to provide what makes Biden son's activity rise above the usual business in our current capitalist system


    Yes, foreign aid was also tied to the investigations. Sondland simpy testified that he was not aware of that link. He did not say that he knew that such link did not exist. it makes zero sense to expect that Trump would have openly told Sondland or other diplomats to propose an illegal offer of getting dirt in exchange of military aid. But people can still see the link when without reason such military aid is frozen at the time when Ukrainians were told to investigate the Bidens and nobody could inform even the Pentagon about the reasons for such freeze. This is why I mentioned that the law against bribery covers BOTH direct and indirect soliciting of a bribe.

    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 American87 View Post

      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.
      1 No he could not! Because the paper trail would have revealed that the start of the investigation was based on political motives

      2 This is not about being kind or not to allies or not. This is about the double standards of behavior and inconsistency which does not fit with the theory that Trump was really interested about fighting corruption in Ukraine. If Trump was REALLY interested about a US citizen's corruption he could have asked the DOJ to investigate any information related to Hunter

      3 They have a need to know if one is interested in collaboration. There is a reason we have numerous diplomats around the world

      4 Sondland testified clearly about the presence of quid pro quo and he was a person who was told by the president to talk to "Rudy" Again, it is the totality of the evidence that reveal the qpq. And the opinion of somebody who talks directly to Giuliani and the POTUS and even uses vulgar language when he talks to a president cannot be dismissed

      5 So, I believe that Bolton thought that Giuliani was engaging in an illegal activity. If you have a different explanation for the use of such expression tell it. And notice again that Bolton also instructed his aid to talk to the head lawyer. Obviously, Bolton had legal concerns. Polls have nothing to do with what we discuss...

      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

        As I said it is the totality of the evidence which reveal the quid pro quo and I did give in the previous post Sondland's testimony about the presence of such quid pro quo. And no, Sondland is not a second hand source. He was directly involved in the negotiations and spoke with Guiliani after the president told him to "talk to Rudy."

        Sorry, but it is your claim that this Eric Ciaramella was the whistleblower.

        Your opinion is weak when you cannot back it up with reasoning. I explained that Hunter was a CEO and a lawyer who was a member of the board of directors and in charge of the legal affairs. If his position and link to the Vice President is enough to establish a reasonable suspicion that can trigger a government investigation then all lobbyists in the US should be investigated for the contracts their companies get together with the lawmakers who are linked to them. You still have failed to provide what makes Biden son's activity rise above the usual business in our current capitalist system


        Yes, foreign aid was also tied to the investigations. Sondland simpy testified that he was not aware of that link. He did not say that he knew that such link did not exist. it makes zero sense to expect that Trump would have openly told Sondland or other diplomats to propose an illegal offer of getting dirt in exchange of military aid. But people can still see the link when without reason such military aid is frozen at the time when Ukrainians were told to investigate the Bidens and nobody could inform even the Pentagon about the reasons for such freeze. This is why I mentioned that the law against bribery covers BOTH direct and indirect soliciting of a bribe.
        In other words, there's no evidence of quid pro quo, and Sondland was never the witness to Guiliani offering the meeting as a quid pro quo agreement.

        I'm not talking about Hunter Biden's reason for being on the board of Barisma. The issue is that Barisma was being investigated, according to sources, when Joe Biden pressured Ukraine into firing the investigator. That's suspicious. It should be investigated. It's definitely not "disproven" as the mainstream media wants you to believe. Trump will bring it up later if Biden runs against him. The American people will decide then.

        No one has discovered any link of a quid pro quo agreement. That's why all these testimonies have been failures, and why Trump's poll numbers are going up. You're a liberal, so you want to impeach Trump. But Republicans and Independents are siding with him. You think Trump witholding aid until a certain date means there was a quid pro quo. Well where's the evidence? It could have been withheld for any number of reasons. Maybe Trump released it for the same reason he released the transcript: he wanted to show that he did nothing wrong.
        "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

          1 No he could not! Because the paper trail would have revealed that the start of the investigation was based on political motives

          2 This is not about being kind or not to allies or not. This is about the double standards of behavior and inconsistency which does not fit with the theory that Trump was really interested about fighting corruption in Ukraine. If Trump was REALLY interested about a US citizen's corruption he could have asked the DOJ to investigate any information related to Hunter

          3 They have a need to know if one is interested in collaboration. There is a reason we have numerous diplomats around the world

          4 Sondland testified clearly about the presence of quid pro quo and he was a person who was told by the president to talk to "Rudy" Again, it is the totality of the evidence that reveal the qpq. And the opinion of somebody who talks directly to Giuliani and the POTUS and even uses vulgar language when he talks to a president cannot be dismissed

          5 So, I believe that Bolton thought that Giuliani was engaging in an illegal activity. If you have a different explanation for the use of such expression tell it. And notice again that Bolton also instructed his aid to talk to the head lawyer. Obviously, Bolton had legal concerns. Polls have nothing to do with what we discuss...
          This is all speculation. There is no evidence that Trump sought a quid pro quo agreement. Sondland even said Trumps words were, "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo." Sondland also, never gave a first hand account of Guiliani proposing a quid pro quo agreement. You're off in la la land trying to make 3+3=4. Either post evidence or accept the fact that Lying Pencil Neck Schiff is making the whole thing up.
          "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

            In other words, there's no evidence of quid pro quo, and Sondland was never the witness to Guiliani offering the meeting as a quid pro quo agreement.

            I'm not talking about Hunter Biden's reason for being on the board of Barisma. The issue is that Barisma was being investigated, according to sources, when Joe Biden pressured Ukraine into firing the investigator. That's suspicious. It should be investigated. It's definitely not "disproven" as the mainstream media wants you to believe. Trump will bring it up later if Biden runs against him. The American people will decide then.

            No one has discovered any link of a quid pro quo agreement. That's why all these testimonies have been failures, and why Trump's poll numbers are going up. You're a liberal, so you want to impeach Trump. But Republicans and Independents are siding with him. You think Trump witholding aid until a certain date means there was a quid pro quo. Well where's the evidence? It could have been withheld for any number of reasons. Maybe Trump released it for the same reason he released the transcript: he wanted to show that he did nothing wrong.
            Of course there is evidence of quid pro quo. As I said, the totality of evidence provides this qpq.

            Burisma was investigated and Hunter was also the head of the legal affairs. Lawyers offer their services to companies who need them. Such behavior does not trigger an FBI investigation. Nor is there any reason to have a public announcement of such specific investigation.

            All these testimonies provide the link of QPQ together with the transcripts and the highly unusual situation of having a personal lawyer working against the established policies as they were understood by the diplomats and the Pentagon at the time. When Trump says "I want a favor though" immediately after Zelensky started talking about the military equipment that can help Ukraine and when the military aid is frozen at a time when Ukrainians were told to investigate Biden, and when the Pentagon or the diplomats are not offered any explanation that can justify the freezing, there is only one reasonable explanation that can explain all these events together. The same is true with Burisma and Biden.


            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 American87 View Post

              This is all speculation. There is no evidence that Trump sought a quid pro quo agreement. Sondland even said Trumps words were, "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo." Sondland also, never gave a first hand account of Guiliani proposing a quid pro quo agreement. You're off in la la land trying to make 3+3=4. Either post evidence or accept the fact that Lying Pencil Neck Schiff is making the whole thing up.
              When the law talks about direct and indirect soliciting of a bribe, it is obvious that it is not a necessary requirement to see in the same sentence the subject articulating his corrupt intend for seeking a quid pro quo. Trump said the word "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo" only the day he learned the House announced an investigation of the whistleblower complaint. In effect, Trump echoed Nixon by saying "I am not a crook." There is no other reasonable explanation to explain all the available facts, phone transcripts, testimonies, Trump's and Giuliani's secretive behavior and Giuliani's and Mulvaney's public interviews and the DOJ's absence. Even the "smoking gun" evidence requires some reasonable inference and does not provide the type of direct proof you think that must be found.

              By the way, now we can also appreciate better how Trump started preparing the public opinion for what he was planning in the background. One can recall the interview in which he was claiming that if a foreigner comes to him with information about his political opponent, he would look into it without even feeling the need that he had to inform the FBI.

              https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-e...ry?id=63669304

              'I think I’d take it': In exclusive interview, Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents

              By
              LUCIEN BRUGGEMAN Jun 13, 2019, 6:58 AM ET


              President Donald Trump may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign's interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign.
              Last edited by pamak; 23 Nov 19, 23:16.
              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

                Of course there is evidence of quid pro quo. As I said, the totality of evidence provides this qpq.
                What is the evidence of quid pro quo? So far the democrats have delivered hearsay and presumptions.

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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                  What is the evidence of quid pro quo? So far the democrats have delivered hearsay and presumptions.
                  I am not into repeating all the relevant posts I wrote in this thread.
                  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

                    I am not into repeating all the relevant posts I wrote in this thread.
                    Of course you won't because there is no evidence of quid pro quo. If there was you leftist would have impeached the president.

                    You have no "relevant posts" you are pushing hearsay and presumptions.
                    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                      Of course you won't because there is no evidence of quid pro quo. If there was you leftist would have impeached the president.

                      You have no "relevant posts" you are pushing hearsay and presumptions.
                      Even the smoking gun evidence requires inferences. which is the correct term instead of the term "presumption" you mentioned. We also have Trump's and Giuliani's words which certainly are not hearsay. ("I need a favor though") and a background context that was explained in all the previous posts.


                      Trump WILL be impeached! Get used to the idea...
                      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

                        Even the smoking gun evidence requires inferences. which is the correct term instead of the term "presumption" you mentioned. We also have Trump's and Giuliani's words which certainly are not hearsay. ("I need a favor though") and a background context that was explained in all the previous posts.


                        Trump WILL be impeached! Get used to the idea...
                        And, it will cost the Democrats the 2020 election. Get used to the idea...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                          Of course there is evidence of quid pro quo. As I said, the totality of evidence provides this qpq.

                          Burisma was investigated and Hunter was also the head of the legal affairs. Lawyers offer their services to companies who need them. Such behavior does not trigger an FBI investigation. Nor is there any reason to have a public announcement of such specific investigation.

                          All these testimonies provide the link of QPQ together with the transcripts and the highly unusual situation of having a personal lawyer working against the established policies as they were understood by the diplomats and the Pentagon at the time. When Trump says "I want a favor though" immediately after Zelensky started talking about the military equipment that can help Ukraine and when the military aid is frozen at a time when Ukrainians were told to investigate Biden, and when the Pentagon or the diplomats are not offered any explanation that can justify the freezing, there is only one reasonable explanation that can explain all these events together. The same is true with Burisma and Biden.

                          Yoshiko Herrera,the usual leftists and anti Russian professor from Madison University,said in the WAPO that the hiring of Biden was a conflict of interests.And the quote of the NYT about the hiring of Biden has been taken over by a lot of leftists media : Business Insider,WSJ,Axios,...
                          And Biden did not offer his services to Burisma. He even ignored the existence of Burisma . Burisma wanted Biden because his father was vicepresident, in fact Burisma hired thhe vicepresident in function of the US .and it was willing to pay the price.And the price was $ millions.For this price, they could buy all Democrats, except Hillary ,who asked $ billions .

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            As I said it is the totality of the evidence which reveal the quid pro quo and I did give in the previous post Sondland's testimony about the presence of such quid pro quo. And no, Sondland is not a second hand source. He was directly involved in the negotiations and spoke with Guiliani after the president told him to "talk to Rudy."

                            Sorry, but it is your claim that this Eric Ciaramella was the whistleblower.

                            Your opinion is weak when you cannot back it up with reasoning. I explained that Hunter was a CEO and a lawyer who was a member of the board of directors and in charge of the legal affairs. If his position and link to the Vice President is enough to establish a reasonable suspicion that can trigger a government investigation then all lobbyists in the US should be investigated for the contracts their companies get together with the lawmakers who are linked to them. You still have failed to provide what makes Biden son's activity rise above the usual business in our current capitalist system


                            Yes, foreign aid was also tied to the investigations. Sondland simpy testified that he was not aware of that link. He did not say that he knew that such link did not exist. it makes zero sense to expect that Trump would have openly told Sondland or other diplomats to propose an illegal offer of getting dirt in exchange of military aid. But people can still see the link when without reason such military aid is frozen at the time when Ukrainians were told to investigate the Bidens and nobody could inform even the Pentagon about the reasons for such freeze. This is why I mentioned that the law against bribery covers BOTH direct and indirect soliciting of a bribe.
                            Marc Thiessen,the man who wrote in the WAPO that the Bidens were guilty of malfeasance,is a never Trumper and an enemy of Trump. Trump replied by a tweet to his attacks .Thus do not say that the WAPO is tolerant and accepts the opinions of non leftists .
                            And Thiessen was hired by the WAPO because he is an enemy of Trump .
                            Thus we have an enemy of Trump ( conservatives who attack Trump ,finish as liberals ) who said that the Bidens are criminals .
                            Joe, vicepresident ,and Hunter, a loser were working simultaneously in Ukraine .
                            Joe to fight against corruption ( officialy ) and to promote the interests of his boss,Hunter, in fact did not work, the news that he was paid by Burisma was sufficient.The reality is that Burisma hired Joe .
                            What would have been the reaction of Amanpour, and the otherat the following scenario in 2001 ?
                            Exxon is in difficulties ( bribe money to the Swamp,tax evasion,and other small things ) and is investigated . Suddenly,the daughter of Cheney is hired by Exxon for $ 200000 a month and ...the investigation is stopped and the prosecutor is fired .
                            I know some people who would talk of impeachment .
                            This scenario happened a few years ago in Ukraine .And,there is an impeachment going on of the man who made it public and wants to investigate it .
                            Last edited by ljadw; 24 Nov 19, 05:44.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                              Yoshiko Herrera,the usual leftists and anti Russian professor from Madison University,said in the WAPO that the hiring of Biden was a conflict of interests.And the quote of the NYT about the hiring of Biden has been taken over by a lot of leftists media : Business Insider,WSJ,Axios,...
                              And Biden did not offer his services to Burisma. He even ignored the existence of Burisma . Burisma wanted Biden because his father was vicepresident, in fact Burisma hired thhe vicepresident in function of the US .and it was willing to pay the price.And the price was $ millions.For this price, they could buy all Democrats, except Hillary ,who asked $ billions .
                              Apparent conflict of interest exists everywhere from lobbyists meeting with lawmakers who legislate laws that affect the industry to the appointment of ex coal industry CEOs in the EPA to having candidates like Trump having businesses abroad. As I said, if one wants to question every aspect of the current economic system in the US, then there is no problem with investigating Hunter too. But be selectively sensitive to apparent conflict of interest does not cut it.

                              You do not now what Burisma wanted and more importantly, it does not matter what Burisma wanted. What matters is Hunter's conduct and if it goes beyond the usual one we see from every CEO in the business. Guess why the defense industry gets former generals in their board of directors or why industry in general get retired politicians. They want to increase the company's prestige and access to government in order to get more contracts. And they pay handsome money for such lobbying service.
                              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 ljadw View Post

                                Marc Thiessen,the man who wrote in the WAPO that the Bidens were guilty of malfeasance,is a never Trumper and an enemy of Trump. Trump replied by a tweet to his attacks .Thus do not say that the WAPO is tolerant and accepts the opinions of non leftists .
                                And Thiessen was hired by the WAPO because he is an enemy of Trump .
                                Thus we have an enemy of Trump ( conservatives who attack Trump ,finish as liberals ) who said that the Bidens are criminals .
                                Joe, vicepresident ,and Hunter, a loser were working simultaneously in Ukraine .
                                Joe to fight against corruption ( officialy ) and to promote the interests of his boss,Hunter, in fact did not work, the news that he was paid by Burisma was sufficient.The reality is that Burisma hired Joe .
                                What would have been the reaction of Amanpour, and the otherat the following scenario in 2001 ?
                                Exxon is in difficulties ( bribe money to the Swamp,tax evasion,and other small things ) and is investigated . Suddenly,the daughter of Cheney is hired by Exxon for $ 200000 a month and ...the investigation is stopped and the prosecutor is fired .
                                I know some people who would talk of impeachment .
                                This scenario happened a few years ago in Ukraine .And,there is an impeachment going on of the man who made it public and wants to investigate it .
                                Marc Thiessen does not have any evidence to suggest what he wrote and has not testified under oath. If she has any evidence of such crime, she could have talked to Trump and the DOJ. The fact that Trump made sure that th DOJ was no part of the discussion is a clear indication that it was realized that they did not have any legal basis to ask for a criminal investigation.

                                Hunter is a lawyer and Burisma hired him as a CEO and head of the legal affairs. Lawyers usually offer service to companies in trouble and we do not start criminal investigations for people who offer such service JUST because they were hired by a company.

                                Also, there as not any active investigation of Burisma when Joe Biden was appointed by Obama as the point man for executing the US policy in Ukraine. Moreover, Ukraine had a history of corrupt politicians and prosecutors who often acted as crooks extorting companies with the threat of investigations in exchange of getting briberies.
                                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

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X