Jpowors

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

54,962 posts in this topic

Welp, this is pretty clear.  From Bill Taylor’s testimony.

Q: Now, my colleague in the minority asked you about ‘quid pro quo.’ And are you a lawyer?
A: I am not. I am not, Mr. Chairman.
Q: Because he asked you about the legal definition of ‘quid pro quo.’ So you’re not
in a position to talk about legal definitions?
A: I am definitely not in the position.
Q: Okay.
A: I don’t speak Latin.

Q: And, of course, whether it meets a legal definition of ‘quid pro quo’ or it doesn’t
is really irrelevant to what we’re focused on here. But it is your testimony that, hey, you don’t make these public statements about these two political investigations we want, you’re not getting this meeting – you make these statements, you’ll get the meeting; you don’t make these statements, you won’t. Was that your understanding of the state of affairs in July of 2019?

A: Yes.

HolyMoses likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Wokezone said:

Strozk? And Carter page helped him make that case that the intelligence community and Mueller appointing him to the committee for Mueller report looked even more suspicious.  If they are innocent they did a great job of looking guilty. That's why they keep failing. Stop giving him ammo.

Right.  The argument was that Strozk shouldn't have been allowed to investigate Trump because he didn't like him.

This line of thinking would mean that Trump had and has no business starting investigation of any of the Bidens..of of the whistle-blower if he happens to be a Dem.  Right? 

 

The Republicans spent the last 2 years yelling that investigations should only be done by friendly members within the same party.

 

Scrunchomarx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also this from Bill Taylor.  Next week’s public hearing is going to be interesting...

Q: And when you say that, this was the first time I heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was conditioned on the investigation, when you talk about conditioned, did you mean that if they didn’t do this, the investigations, they weren’t going to get that, the meeting and the military assistance?

A: That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President [of Ukraine] committed to pursue the investigation.

Q: So if they don’t do this, they are not going to get that was your understanding?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Are you aware that quid pro quo literally means this for that?

A: I am.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Welp, this is pretty clear.  From Bill Taylor’s testimony.

Q: Now, my colleague in the minority asked you about ‘quid pro quo.’ And are you a lawyer?
A: I am not. I am not, Mr. Chairman.
Q: Because he asked you about the legal definition of ‘quid pro quo.’ So you’re not
in a position to talk about legal definitions?
A: I am definitely not in the position.
Q: Okay.
A: I don’t speak Latin.

Q: And, of course, whether it meets a legal definition of ‘quid pro quo’ or it doesn’t
is really irrelevant to what we’re focused on here. But it is your testimony that, hey, you don’t make these public statements about these two political investigations we want, you’re not getting this meeting – you make these statements, you’ll get the meeting; you don’t make these statements, you won’t. Was that your understanding of the state of affairs in July of 2019?

A: Yes.

At some point, there'll be a transition to "it was OK, even as a quid pro quo, because it was not a corrupt quid pro quo" 

But they didn't want Zelensky  just to commit to fighting corruption. They wanted him to publicly shame Burisma/Biden. That's a pretty corrupt motive. 

 

Scrunchomarx and Leon Troutsky like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HolyMoses said:

At some point, there'll be a transition to "it was OK, even as a quid pro quo, because it was not a corrupt quid pro quo" 

But they didn't want Zelensky  just to commit to fighting corruption. They wanted him to publicly shame Burisma/Biden. That's a pretty corrupt motive. 

 

Exactly.  The fact that Trump didn’t run it through the State Department, but instead had his personal lawyer working behind the scenes is another strong indication he knew it was corrupt.  

Also, everybody involved who has testified have all said they viewed it as inappropriate or corrupt.

Wokezone and HolyMoses like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, thesouphead said:

Wow...according to Nunes, that will take at least 2 weeks to read.

He can hear Taylor tell it himself at the hearings next week. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, thesouphead said:

Right.  The argument was that Strozk shouldn't have been allowed to investigate Trump because he didn't like him.

This line of thinking would mean that Trump had and has no business starting investigation of any of the Bidens..of of the whistle-blower if he happens to be a Dem.  Right? 

 

The Republicans spent the last 2 years yelling that investigations should only be done by friendly members within the same party.

 

No he showed a bias from his election to get him impeached. That's greater than didnt like him.  Come on now. 

Yes.Trump shouldn't have been investigating the Bidens,  Obama's, or Clinton's for that matter. The latter especially so from his lock her up rallies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mfaulk57158 said:

Wokezone is trollin 

Naw I'm giving you a preview of the arguments coming. I think he should step down anyway regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not voting for Trump just like I didnt vote for the Republican governor this year. But i would absolutely vote for Pence 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Wokezone said:

Naw I'm giving you a preview of the arguments coming. I think he should step down anyway regardless.

Dude we all already know what his arguments are gonna be and how Trumpers are gonna eat em up.

AF89, mdrake34, Scrunchomarx and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, mfaulk57158 said:

Wokezone is trollin 

When isn’t he

1 minute ago, Jpowors said:

Dude we all already know what his arguments are gonna be and how Trumpers are gonna eat em up.

All the way to the float. Ain’t that right @WhenFalconsWin down by the lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jpowors said:

Dude we all already know what his arguments are gonna be and how Trumpers are gonna eat em up.

Not just trumpets. Even conservatives who believe the left and the media untrustworthy are going to have a hard time swallowing this all came from a democrat insider with close ties to the Bidens and not think this is all another setup.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wokezone said:

Not just trumpets. Even conservatives who believe the left and the media untrustworthy are going to have a hard time swallowing this all came from a democrat insider with close ties to the Bidens and not think this is all another setup.  

So......their argument is gonna be sure everything the whistleblower said is true and multiple people have stated so under oath and the President's chief of staff went on national TV and admitted it out loud for the world to hear.......but he's a Dem so it doesn't matter?

 

I mean I really don't care about those folks opinions. They had their minds made up already if this moves em. They just needed an excuse.

AF89, Scrunchomarx and mdrake34 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Wokezone said:

Im not voting for Trump just like I didnt vote for the Republican governor this year. But i would absolutely vote for Pence 2020.

A vote for pence is a vote for mother.

 

mother 2020

Scrunchomarx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jpowors said:

So......their argument is gonna be sure everything the whistleblower said is true and multiple people have stated so under oath and the President's chief of staff went on national TV and admitted it out loud for the world to hear.......but he's a Dem so it doesn't matter?

 

I mean I really don't care about those folks opinions. They had their minds made up already if this moves em. They just needed an excuse.

You underestimate the lack of memory retention in our society at large. The soundbite will be Democrat insider with ties to Biden evied these false allegations in a continued attempt to undermine the 2016 election and upcoming 2020 election. That's all they will here. Everything else will be noise. 

Edited by Wokezone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jpowors said:

I mean I really don't care about those folks opinions. 

That's what Trump and his team are banking on.  The same mistake if Hillary in 2016. Write them off,  basket if deplorables, irredeemable,  etc... meanwhile his soundbite plays while you sound like an elitist.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wokezone said:

Not just trumpets. Even conservatives who believe the left and the media untrustworthy are going to have a hard time swallowing this all came from a democrat insider with close ties to the Bidens and not think this is all another setup.  

All of that might be true if the whistleblower were the source of the information.  But at this point, unimpeachable witnesses (Vindman, Taylor, etc.) have testified and corroborated the complaint.  So the whistleblower doesn't actually matter anymore.  

It would be like someone in a bank heard specific information about the manager stealing money out of the vault.  This person hates the manager with a passion and wants to get him fired.  So he puts together all of the information he heard and passes it along to supervisors.  The supervisors interview other employees at the bank who don't even know the manager.  They all say "yes, he was stealing from the bank, here are videos of him doing it, and here are other people who also saw it."  Then the manager says, "okay, I took money from the vault and took it home, but that's not stealing!"  

After all of that, who cares if the person who originally passed the information along to supervisers hates the manager or not?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jpowors said:

So......their argument is gonna be sure everything the whistleblower said is true and multiple people have stated so under oath and the President's chief of staff went on national TV and admitted it out loud for the world to hear.......but he's a Dem so it doesn't matter?

 

I mean I really don't care about those folks opinions. They had their minds made up already if this moves em. They just needed an excuse.

More importantly, the people that DO matter -- independents and leaning partisans -- aren't going to be persuaded by bias arguments given all the actual facts and evidence that's emerged.  Complaining about the whistleblower is intended to keep the GOP base distracted.  It's not going to shift the impeachment numbers.

Jpowors likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

All of that might be true if the whistleblower were the source of the information.  But at this point, unimpeachable witnesses (Vindman, Taylor, etc.) have testified and corroborated the complaint.  So the whistleblower doesn't actually matter anymore.  

It would be like someone in a bank heard specific information about the manager stealing money out of the vault.  This person hates the manager with a passion and wants to get him fired.  So he puts together all of the information he heard and passes it along to supervisors.  The supervisors interview other employees at the bank who don't even know the manager.  They all say "yes, he was stealing from the bank, here are videos of him doing it, and here are other people who also saw it."  Then the manager says, "okay, I took money from the vault and took it home, but that's not stealing!"  

After all of that, who cares if the person who originally passed the information along to supervisers hates the manager or not?  

If Washington and politics worked like ther general public and had common sense I agree it would be simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wokezone said:

If Washington and politics worked like ther general public and had common sense I agree it would be simple. 

Bro, the entire game here is convincing the general public.  Everything about impeachment is going to hinge on how the public reacts to the competing arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

Bro, the entire game here is convincing the general public.  Everything about impeachment is going to hinge on how the public reacts to the competing arguments.

Which is why taking the I don't care what the other side thinks approach is silly.  Its going to require some Republicans crossing over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now