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.
Of what you said, I might disagree with the part I bolded. I think there's some fact evidence that a "quid pro quo" took place, but not an illicit one. Rather the kind of situation that has always been the basis of foreign policy.
The problem Democrats have is that the "quid pro quo" in question is not in itself illegal in any way so they are stuck trying to prove corrupt intent behind the actions....which is next to impossible when a plausible legitimate intent exists, and one does exist.
What evidence is there of a quid pro quo? Seriously.
The so called victim, Zenelsky, is most certainly evidence, and he has repeatedly said there were no "this for that" conditions applied to the aid.
In any other matter, if the witness says it did not happen, then you have no case. Why are we calling the victim a liar, and pursuing a case with only hearsay and conjecture claiming the victim is lying, and we need to prosecute the defendant anyway????
The July 25th phone call, is the de facto evidence, since it was the whistleblower's source for the supposed quid pro quo. The transcript does not mention "aid" or "funds" or "money," much less conditions tied to it. It sure as hell does not show where Schiff claimed Trump supposedly said seven times that he wanted to dig up dirt on Biden, or there would be no aid money.
We do have people like Sondland and Vindman who assumed there might be conditions tied to the aid, but they have no proof other than their personal presumptions.
Well that must mean that she either thinks that she has the votes, which would be disastrous for Democrats in vulnerable districts, or her polling tells her that it would be even more disastrous to back out.
What evidence is there of a quid pro quo? Seriously.
The so called victim, Zenelsky, is most certainly evidence, and he has repeatedly said there were no "this for that" conditions applied to the aid.
The July 25th phone call, which is the de facto evidence, since it was the whistleblower's source for the supposed quid pro quo. the transcript does not mention "aid" or "funds" or "money," much less conditions tied to it. It sure as hell does not show where Trump supposedly said seven times that he wanted to dig up dirt on Biden, or there would be no aid money.
We do have people like Sondland and Vindman who assumed there might be conditions tied to the aid, but they have no proof other than their personal presumptions.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't dismiss entirely the notion that a quid pro quo took place, I think there is enough circumstantial evidence given different statements to suggest that one might have happened. The problem is that it's not something that is inherently illegal or even wrong.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't dismiss entirely the notion that a quid pro quo took place, I think there is enough circumstantial evidence given different statements to suggest that one might have happened. The problem is that it's not something that is inherently illegal or even wrong.
You are right that a quid pro quo is not inherently illegal or wrong. Indeed, it happens regularly in diplomacy. What converts a "perfectly legal" quid pro quo to something more sinister is when the quid is the release taxpayer funded strategic aid or another other benefit that can be given only by virtue of the holding of public office and quo is a personal benefit to the public office holder, in this case dirt to use to attack a political challenger (e.g., the announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden).
I will note that the law professors on the panel yesterday unanimously agreed that such a quid pro quo would an impeachable offense. Indeed, while Prof. Turley hedged by arguing that more evidence was needed, he did not disagree that using the power of the Presidency to bolster his political campaign in this manner was impeachable.
So the Republican defense is what exactly? The process is unfair? Trump had the opportunity to mount a defense and refused. The deal he attempted to strike wasn't a crime because he failed? Being a bad criminal doesn't make you innocent; it just makes you a bad criminal. The deal didn't constitute quid pro quo? Numerous witnesses, including direct witnesses hired by Trump himself, testified the opposite. Trump had a reason for withholding the aid and the meeting? Neither he anyone else provided us with any reason, Congress already appropriated the funding, and the timeline doesn't hold up. So what exactly is the defense? It's OK for him to involve foreign countries in our elections just because he's Trump? The Republicans continuously whine, "IT'S SO UNFAIR!!!" But you know what they aren't saying? They aren't saying Trump didn't do it. Republicans continue to attack the process because they cannot defend the action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss
Trump got what he asked for Impeachment. Trump impeached himself. So another win for Trump.
Problem is Trump does not go to trials and win.
His scams cost him millions in the end.
This one, there is no buy out option.
LOL!
You do know, of the 20 so called "witnesses" called by the Democrats so far, only one will be allowed to testify in the Senate or have any of their testimony in the house admitted into the record, when it comes to the Senate. Hearsy will never be allowed. Sondland is the only one of the 20 people interviewed so far, that had direct contact.
I heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another you been mess'n around!
Popcorn please!
When the real players come forward, the Democrats are going to be made to look like even bigger fools.
Pelosi, better go to the courts to get people to testify, instead of thinking there are only 2 branches of government
The SC is for disputes between the 2 branches, not impeachment. Now, if the SC judgement was not followed... Impeach all you want. I'd join you.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't dismiss entirely the notion that a quid pro quo took place, I think there is enough circumstantial evidence given different statements to suggest that one might have happened. The problem is that it's not something that is inherently illegal or even wrong.
But the more important point is so what if there was? Nobody cares! (No mentally healthy person) Because his motivation was in alignment with the interests of average Americans.
But the more important point is so what if there was? Nobody cares! (No mentally healthy person) Because his motivation was in alignment with the interests of average Americans.
Announcing a criminal investigation into the Bidens is "in alignment with the interests of average Americans"?
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.
But you know what they aren't saying? They aren't saying Trump didn't do it. Republicans continue to attack the process because they cannot defend the action.
