Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He's now claiming that the aid was being withheld until Ukraine made a public announcement about their investigation. The problem (for democrats) is he admitted that he personally made the quid pro quo statement, not Trump. And the other problem is that Ukraine had already publicly announced reopening the investigation back in April, before Trump's phone call with Ukraine even took place. And the other problem is that Ukraine is already required to cooperate with a Federal investigation, so there really isn't any "quo" if President Trump is asking them to do something they are already legally required to do. Am I right?
The suggestion that Sondland was a rogue actor rather than acting at the direction of Trump is undercut by the following facts: (i) Sondland had no ability to control the release of the strategic funds; (ii) the strategic funds blocked by Mulvaney's office; (iii) Trump expressly brought up the Bidens after cutting off Zelenskyy's inquiry about the aid after asking "do us a favor though"; (iv) Mulvaney tied the release of the aid to the investigations on live TV; (v) other testimony taken from Taylor and Hill noted that the order to withhold the funds came from above Sondland's paygrade; (vi) the President's personal lawyer was in Ukraine trying to dig up dirt on Biden and Trump directed Zelenskyy to liase with Guiliani rather than the State Department.
Nope, Sondland could not have done this without the President's and/or Mulvaney's personal participation.
If that's what you want to believe, I can't stop you.
Whatever the case may be - it wasn't enough for them to warrant the effort.
I'll stick with my theory unless there's a better reason.
The Mueller investigation was much different than any preceding investigation of it's type.
The special prosecutors of the Watergate era and in the time of Bill Clinton had more authority. They were actually detached from control of the Justice Department and they could indict a president if necessary. The Mueller investigation was conducted under rules set later, which placed them squarely under the Justice department, which BTW has a standing rule that they will never indict the chief executive, who is technically their boss.
Mueller abided by that. He went a logical step further, and decided that if he could not resolve a charge in court, he would not make the charge because the president would not be able to clear his name in a court of law.
This is where he left it, assuming the congress could take it up. But Barr blocked handing over the grand jury materials to congress. He tried to block the entire Mueller report from congress, and based on that he issued a 'summary' that was deliberately deceptive.
The Mueller report was finally released with redactions, but the Justice department continued to block the grand jury evidence from congress.
The Speaker of the House was of the mind that if they could obtain nothing more conclusive it would probably be better to bring as much information to the light of day as possible and put it before the voters in the next election. Then this whole new thing blew up ...
The Mueller report is still there for all to see, and there are 10 episodes of obstruction of justice detailed in it, so it has not lost it's importance as a tool to evaluate the presidency. A very recent court ruling orders the grand jury materials to be handed over, so that is back in play as well.
This Ukrainian extortion scheme is something new entirely and seems to have overshadowed the Mueller report. Both scandals are important insights into the corruption of this president and taken together show a dangerous pattern. It is likely there is more to uncover, president Trump can't seem to help himself.
I have said it all along. Ukraine is Biden's scandal. He lied about knowing that his son was working for them. He is still lying about it. Trump released the transcripts. Nothing there, yet the media swears there is. They are lying. READ the actual transcripts not the media's interpretation of them.
The Democrats know there is nothing there. That's why there won't be a vote for Articles of Impeachment and if there is it will be right before the election. More Democrat schemes and lies.
And why shouldn't it be "quid pro quo?"
Why military aid SHOULDN'T be attached to a demand to uncover the corruption of the US official, since this corruption threatens the US institutions, not just enrich the pocket of the person (Trump in this case,) who ask to help the investigation?
Now Biden and his son - that's a whole different problem.
That's where the personal enrichment is involved.
Better question - Whatever happened to "No quid pro quo"? That is the song the Trump Chorale has been singing for two months, now. Now that there is one, firmly corroborated by 13 witnesses (and counting), it's okay...?
If you legitimately investigate corruption, and that investigation leads to those involved regardless of name or position (that is, let the pieces fall where they may)…………….that's Trump's crime? Funny, sort of. No?
What a load of bull excrement! Mr. Meadows is twisting himself into a pretzel desperately trying to spin Trump's extortion into something legitimate.
Now that Amb. Sondland has flipped we now have all witnesses confirming that Trump tried to extort Ukraine into providing assistance to the Trump reelection campaign, a violation of US law.
Open and shut case. Trump's guilty, he broke the law; Congress has a duty to impeach.
Better question - Whatever happened to "No quid pro quo"? That is the song the Trump Chorale has been singing for two months, now. Now that there is one, firmly corroborated by 13 witnesses (and counting), it's okay...?
1 thing most can agree with is Trump knows he can't win without corrupt foreign meddling. A lot of people that voted for TRUMP were influenced by Russians. But there was no Quid pro quo.
Foreign aid to Ukraine helped enrich Biden's and Pelosi's sons... but Trump is being impeached for investigating on behalf of the U.S. Justice system? Come on guys.
Foreign aid to Ukraine helped enrich Biden's and Pelosi's sons... but Trump is being impeached
My problem with all of this is, what I read in the transcript is Trump asks him to look into 2 things; interference in the 16 election, and Hunter Biden and Burisma, he only mentions the old man as a reference to why he thinks the investigation should be reopened. Is asking him to reopen an investigation into Burisma asking to interfere in the ‘20 election, I think it’s a stretch.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
