The implied quid pro quo is implied when the Ukranian president says he want's to purchase more Javelins. The next paragraph from the Trump has Trump asking for a favor, to investigate the Biden thing. Then the Ukranian president promises to look into it. Now here I will issue a disclaimer, since we don't have the actual recording or word for word transcript I will say that the actual call might not have been that bad, or might not have been bad at all. Th short memo documents a 30 minute conversation. I don't know if there is just a lot that wasn't noted or if there are translators which really slow down the conversation so who know what else that sways this one way or another might have been left out. So understand that my assessment was based on the memo with the acknowledgement the truth could be different.

Even Mulvaney said it was quid pro quo and told the press to get over it.


However as I stated before, quid pro quo is not the issue. Quid pro quo is not even an element of the crime allegedly being committed so it doesn't matter whether there is quid pro quo or not. So I am not calling it quid pro quo because I think that technicality means he committed a crime, I am calling it quid pro quo because that's what it looked like. Again though, quid pro quo is irrelevant.

Do me a favor and explain how a PURCHASE is something the PRESIDENT has control over.

The narrative is Trump was withholding AID to the Ukrainians, as in cash and loans. Ukraine BUYING (i.e. paying for) new weapons is not aid.

Now if you think the Ukrainians needed the aid to purchase the weapons from us, then that's still a stretch, since there was no mention of "we are almost ready to buy those Javelins as soon as we receive the proceeds from the US aid package".  There was no contingency on that purchase stated, implied or brought into any narratives from the inquiry.

In fact, when the phone call was made, the Ukrainian president had NO CLUE the aid was being held up by Trump to see if the Europeans would pony up their promised share.  That was done BEFORE the call, it was not mentioned, and the money was released just a couple of weeks later with no quid pro quo involved.

The facts don't support your "clear understanding" of what was never implied.  You heard Schiff's fake account of the call and that's all you seem to think is factual without hard evidence to the contrary.

Quid pro quo is THE ENTIRE ISSUE.  The accusation is that Trump coerced/pressured/pushed the Ukrainian president to open an investigation into Biden and his son (for 2016 election crimes and corruption) IN EXCHANGE FOR releasing the military aid.  They say that's abuse of power.

Without the aid as leverage, what "power" could he be abusing?

QPQ, since potus cant authorize sale of uranium. Someone who is gets $500k for a 45 minute speech. Does that count? No direct money for said urainum, just a mutual understanding.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I was watching Cavuto this morning. He reported that the Dems intend to use the transcript as the basis for impeachment. Don’t know if that is true or not, but it does prove a few things if true. All of the talk for the last 3 years about having absolute proof that Trump did something impeachable was all a lie. Because they could be using that evidence and they are not if this report is true. It also means the WB testimony is meaningless as I stated before. Also, the WB has been tainted by Schiff so they intend not to use the WB at all. The real problem is Schiff is tainted because of his lying and having contact with the WB prior to the official complaint.

It is obvious this has been a witch hunt from the beginning. If the transcript is all the Dems have to try and impeach Trump, they have a very weak case. To try and be objective the dems have a point about if you want to interpret a quid pro quo from the transcript, one could. But it would be pretty baseless since there is no corroborating evidence. On the other side there is corroborating evidence that there was never an intent towards quid pro quo by the president. It’s sad how the dems are clinging to such a weak document to get to high crimes and misdemeanors.

I have read the transcript 3 times now. The first time I read it I could not see where there was anything even close to a quid pro quo. Then I read it after reading an interpretation by a constitutional lawyer. Still do not see it. Then I read a couple of articles from the MSM and printed them out and went through the transcript again with the interpretations from the MSM. And while I get what they are saying about a quid pro quo, it relies on interpreting Trumps thoughts and intents a particular way in order to get there. That’s a huge stretch to get to high crimes and misdemeanors. Especially since there is corroborating evidence to support Trumps interpretation of the phone call. But this is why the back room investigation is going on and is ongoing. The dems get to control what is released to the public. And if only one sided and edited testimony is released as is currently being done, then there will be those naive and ignorant people that believe impeachment is the correct action to take. I take the fact that the Republicans demanding that the back room testimonies be released to the public for transparency sake as proof that we are not being told the truth and will never be told the truth in this matter.

Like Clinton, House will impeach, Senate will not bring to trial. 
Instead of quid pro quo, it becomes status quo.

Read an interesting report on the WB this morning on Real Clear Politics. Not sure yet as to the validity of everything reported here. However, if true this shows the depth of the Deep State and how far it will go to get rid of Trump. The corruption during the Obama administration is truly breathless.

The WB turns out to be a mid level Obama holdover working for The NSA. He was caught Leaking information designed to hurt the president. Was fired and moved to where he is currently working. He worked for Brennen, Biden and hates Trump with a passion. He is even mentioned in the Mueller report. And he now is caught trying to peddle secondhand information which is mostly not true to Schiff, not the FBI, in order to start the impeachment process. Can you say tainted?

So now, not only does the transcript provide a very weak basis for impeachment, but the reason for starting the impeachment process is now tainted. WOW JUST WOW!!!

https://spectator.org/blowing-the-whistle-on-the-whistleblower/

Like Clinton, House will impeach, Senate will not bring to trial. 
Instead of quid pro quo, it becomes status quo.

Well said. 

Read an interesting report on the WB this morning on Real Clear Politics. Not sure yet as to the validity of everything reported here. However, if true this shows the depth of the Deep State and how far it will go to get rid of Trump. The corruption during the Obama administration is truly breathless.

The WB turns out to be a mid level Obama holdover working for The NSA. He was caught Leaking information designed to hurt the president. Was fired and moved to where he is currently working. He worked for Brennen, Biden and hates Trump with a passion. He is even mentioned in the Mueller report. And he now is caught trying to peddle secondhand information which is mostly not true to Schiff, not the FBI, in order to start the impeachment process. Can you say tainted?

So now, not only does the transcript provide a very weak basis for impeachment, but the reason for starting the impeachment process is now tainted. WOW JUST WOW!!!

https://spectator.org/blowing-the-whistle-on-the-whistleblower/

This story “bored” sounds familiar...

They already did go after him. Maybe they squashed it because they think they needed him in order to beat Trump or maybe it just really wasn't that serious of a claim so it never really stuck.

Sarcasm Sheldon Cooper. Sarcasm...

Do me a favor and explain how a PURCHASE is something the PRESIDENT has control over.

The narrative is Trump was withholding AID to the Ukrainians, as in cash and loans. Ukraine BUYING (i.e. paying for) new weapons is not aid.

Now if you think the Ukrainians needed the aid to purchase the weapons from us, then that's still a stretch, since there was no mention of "we are almost ready to buy those Javelins as soon as we receive the proceeds from the US aid package".  There was no contingency on that purchase stated, implied or brought into any narratives from the inquiry.

In fact, when the phone call was made, the Ukrainian president had NO CLUE the aid was being held up by Trump to see if the Europeans would pony up their promised share.  That was done BEFORE the call, it was not mentioned, and the money was released just a couple of weeks later with no quid pro quo involved.

The facts don't support your "clear understanding" of what was never implied.  You heard Schiff's fake account of the call and that's all you seem to think is factual without hard evidence to the contrary.

Quid pro quo is THE ENTIRE ISSUE.  The accusation is that Trump coerced/pressured/pushed the Ukrainian president to open an investigation into Biden and his son (for 2016 election crimes and corruption) IN EXCHANGE FOR releasing the military aid.  They say that's abuse of power.

Without the aid as leverage, what "power" could he be abusing?

Trump has the power to approve or reject weapons sales to foreign countries.
"Under the 1976 Arms Export Control Act, the State Department authorizes arms sales (or doesn’t)."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/30/yes-trump-can-override-congress-sell-weapons-saudi-arabia-even-over-republican-objections/

I have been thinking about this issue a little bit and I am going to dial back my saying it was a clear quid pro quo because the fact the transcript is more of a summary than a word for word record. Without word for word one really can't be as certain it was quid pro quo. The issue is certainly raised and is arguably unethical but absent some other bit of evidence, it could be hard to prove quid pro quo beyond a reasonable doubt. But again, like I said, quid pro quo really isn't key to the issue. Quid pro quo is not an element of the offense in question. The law states it is illegal to seek campaign donations form a foreign source, that's about it (I am paraphrasing). It doesn't say anything about an exchange or a quid pro quo of any type.

I didn't hear Schiff's account, I read the document to get an understanding what was in it. And you are making a straw man again. I never said I think the the document was fake so why do you insist in misstating what I said and proceeding to argue against when I never said?

I have been thinking about this issue a little bit and I am going to dial back my saying it was a clear quid pro quo because the fact the transcript is more of a summary than a word for word record.

so, you're saying you were wrong?

so, you're saying you were wrong?

Depending on how you look at it.
I am saying I think it might have trouble standing up in a criminal court proceeding. (if the crime alleged required quid pro quo to be proven)

Depending on how you look at it.
I am saying I think it might have trouble standing up in a criminal court proceeding. (if the crime alleged required quid pro quo to be proven)

exactly the type of answer I expected...

so, you're saying you were wrong?

It was never a transcript in the true/official sense. So one could never be wrong if he based his statements on second hand information.  Oh wait, isn’t that what the whole issue has devolved into now?

#noteverythingisaconspiracy #manyobvioushypocritsthough

exactly the type of answer I expected...

Better than Neo

Trump has the power to approve or reject weapons sales to foreign countries.
"Under the 1976 Arms Export Control Act, the State Department authorizes arms sales (or doesn’t)."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/30/yes-trump-can-override-congress-sell-weapons-saudi-arabia-even-over-republican-objections/

I have been thinking about this issue a little bit and I am going to dial back my saying it was a clear quid pro quo because the fact the transcript is more of a summary than a word for word record. Without word for word one really can't be as certain it was quid pro quo. The issue is certainly raised and is arguably unethical but absent some other bit of evidence, it could be hard to prove quid pro quo beyond a reasonable doubt. But again, like I said, quid pro quo really isn't key to the issue. Quid pro quo is not an element of the offense in question. The law states it is illegal to seek campaign donations form a foreign source, that's about it (I am paraphrasing). It doesn't say anything about an exchange or a quid pro quo of any type.

I didn't hear Schiff's account, I read the document to get an understanding what was in it. And you are making a straw man again. I never said I think the the document was fake so why do you insist in misstating what I said and proceeding to argue against when I never said?

What was the "DONATION" that Trump solicited?  Be exact and specific.

As I already posted, the law states such a contribution must be a THING OF VALUE.  Information has never been included in any court decision as being a thing of value.

So, if you want to pretend to be a lawyer on this forum, you should outline THE WHOLE law, not just the part you want people to consider.

In other words, you're wrong again -- and still.

What was the "DONATION" that Trump solicited?  Be exact and specific.

As I already posted, the law states such a contribution must be a THING OF VALUE.  Information has never been included in any court decision as being a thing of value.

So, if you want to pretend to be a lawyer on this forum, you should outline THE WHOLE law, not just the part you want people to consider.

In other words, you're wrong again -- and still.

Nothings changed.