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.
No, he was not doing it in order to obtain personal or political gain. Nor was he inviting the Tunisians to provide any information that would be used in his next election.
Seems that this impeachment stuff is making all you Trumpsters go crazy. It's funny lol.
But we don't have the proof yet that Trump was pursuing personal gain. If you read the so-called 'transcript' the proof is not there. It can be interpreted as a matter of personal gain, as Nikki Haley says, by making 'assumptions.' It can also be interpreted otherwise.
Well wait for the hearings to complete so the decision can be made instead of relating something from centuries ago, that is nothing like the circumstances at hand, to try to make some weirdo assertion about quid pro quo
People who have testified at the hearings, who listened to the call themselves, have agreed with the whistleblower's complaint that Trump was engaging in a quid quo pro. That you tried to excuse such quid pro quos by citing James Madison in your OP indicates that you, too, acknowledge Trump engaged in a quid quo pro. You were just trying to excuse it by telling us, "Oh, James Madison did it too." Except that he actually didn't.
Yes, I have read the transcript, and as has been noted in the press the portion of the call containing the quid quo pro was omitted.
IOW, after trying to tell us in your OP that Trump's quid pro quo was OK because James Madison supposedly did it too, now you're trying to say Trump didn't even engage in a quid pro quo because it wasn't in the transcript the White House released.
My gosh, you just can't get away from the tactic of shoving words into your interlocutor's mouth, can you?
Please reread post #1. CAREFULLY AND SLOWLY! I never said that "in...[my] OP that Trump's quid pro quo was OK" In fact you can read it as many times as you wish, and a mention of Trump, much less Trump's quid pro quo, is not in there.
My take as of now is that the evidence of a quid pro quo by Trump is not there. That could possibly change with the testimony of David Holmes.
If you wish to comment on someone's post, you're better off to quote them verbatim and comment on THAT rather than making up words you wish they would have said, and then proceed to knock that down.
People who have testified at the hearings, who listened to the call themselves, have agreed with the whistleblower's complaint that Trump was engaging in a quid quo pro. That you tried to excuse such quid pro quos by citing James Madison in your OP indicates that you, too, acknowledge Trump engaged in a quid quo pro. You were just trying to excuse it by telling us, "Oh, James Madison did it too." Except that he actually didn't.
Yes, I have read the transcript, and as has been noted in the press the portion of the call containing the quid quo pro was omitted.
IOW, after trying to tell us in your OP that Trump's quid pro quo was OK because James Madison supposedly did it too, now you're trying to say Trump didn't even engage in a quid pro quo because it wasn't in the transcript the White House released.
Lt. Col. Vindman, who listened to the July 25th call, testified that the so-called transcript was accurate and complete.
Quote:
"You don't think there was any malicious intent to specifically not add those edits?" asked Republican counsel Steve Castor.
"I don't think so." [replied Vindman]
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate?'"
Yes," said Vindman.
How could he possibly say such a thing if "it wasn't in the transcript the White House released." He was in on the call. Do you think he was lying about whether it was "complete?" He's clearly generally coming from an anti-Trump bent.
No, he was not doing it in order to obtain personal or political gain. Nor was he inviting the Tunisians to provide any information that would be used in his next election.
Seems that this impeachment stuff is making all you Trumpsters go crazy. It's funny lol.
First, as so often is the case, your psychic powers have failed you. I am not a "Trumpster." I didn't vote for him; actually I donated a fair amount against him.
Secondly, please point me to the part of the impeachment provisions of the Constitution that limit impeachment cases to either personal gain or political gain. I'll wait....
There are differences but both were cases of 'quid pro quo' with a foreign government. In the case of Madison, it was of a much more scurrilous and scandalous nature. Another difference is that Madison's actions were provable, being right there in the federal ledger. As of yet we can't even prove for sure that Trump's case was even an actual 'quid pro quo.'
What does it matter that Madison was not president? Are you saying that if Sec. Pompeo had executed this instead of Pres. Trump it would have been ok?
No, this was not a case of "quid pro quo". While it is scandalous.
This entire "quid pro quo" think is just smoke, anyway. Quid pro quo isn't necessarily criminal. It simply denotes an exchange. Denying that an exchange happened doesn't mean that the exchange attempted wasn't wrong or unlawful. This entire, "well, there wasn't a quid pro quo" defense is like the Lindbergh kidnappers denying that a quid pro quo happened and so they were innocent. We didn't return the baby, so there was no quid pro quo.
President Trump withheld funds with the goal of getting the Ukrainians to issue a statement to the effect that the Bidens, father and son, were being investigated for corruption. The funds that President Trump was withholding weren't his personal funds, they were federally appropriated. And the announcement of an investigation didn't serve American interests, they served Trump's personal interests.
If you want to tar Madison, you'll have to try something else. Because what Madison did was serve American interests. If Pompeo had engineered this "get Ukraine to announce an investigation of the Bidens" it would still have been wrong. Such an investigation only served President Trump. ONLY him. And he cannot pressure foreign governments into serving his political interests. He should not even accept offers of such political interest from foreign governments. The office of the President is separate from the political campaign of the President.
But we don't have the proof yet that Trump was pursuing personal gain. If you read the so-called 'transcript' the proof is not there. It can be interpreted as a matter of personal gain, as Nikki Haley says, by making 'assumptions.' It can also be interpreted otherwise.
It's personal gain. Period.
The United States would not be served by the announcement of the Ukrainians that they were investigating the Bidens. If a corruption investigation was warranted, the United States is more than capable of doing its own investigation. Why didn't Trump initiate such an investigation? Because it would have been perceived as Trump abusing his office for political gain. So he and Giuliani cooked up a scheme where it would be a foreign government doing the investigation. Trump gets his dirt, but can distance himself from the investigation (hey, it's not me, it's Ukraine...Biden is so corrupt that the corrupt Ukraine is investigating him).
And btw, the impeachment provisions of the US Constitution do not make mention of 'personal gain' anyway. Ollie North and Robert MacFarlane were not acting for personal gain. Does that make it ok in your book?
The US Constitution does not have to make mention of personal gain. It doesn't have to itemize what the grounds for impeachment have to be, it gives a broad description of why impeachment may be initiated. It is up to the House to decide if there is grounds for impeachment.
Are you saying that if the Ukrainians had proposed the (alleged) deal, and Trump had then seen it through, it would have been ok? That is the implication of your formulation.
Quid pro quo doesn't denote criminality. It denotes an exchange.
If the Ukrainians had proposed such a deal, and if Trump had seen it through, it would still have been wrong. Because a US President does not work with a foreign government to get re-elected. In any way, shape or form.
And btw, the impeachment provisions of the US Constitution do not make mention of 'personal gain' anyway. Ollie North and Robert MacFarlane were not acting for personal gain. Does that make it ok in your book?
Your arguments against the bribery charge on Trump are getting really awkward when you have to resort to semantics quibbles. The Constitution does not define lots of terms it uses. All that matters is whether the Senate knows what the exact charge is when the trial is held. I am sure Schiff will make it clear. You can call it whatever you want, bribery or quid pro quo, the point is, has Trump crossed the line where his official acts are primarily in service of his political or personal goals as opposed to those of the USA?
To say that Trump's goal was rooting out corruption in Ukraine flies in the face of reality. MBS murdered Jamal Khashoggi and had his body cut up and disposed of. Trump did not blink an eye at that, despite what the CIA and the Senate said and in fact sold him a bunch of armaments. Trump is blind to corruption. It defies credibility to make Trump out to be a crusader for just behavior by our allies.
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.
