Democrats Repeat Quid Pro Quo Even Though There Was No Quid Pro Quo

[gtopa1]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed

So the Dems did it instead....by bringing the Bidens' "unusual arrangements" with a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch into the open.

Greg

 

[bripat9643]

Except that of course there is quid pro quo.

Please list your points of evidence.

You can skip the assumptions, presumptions, musings and speculations given by the "witnesses" under Schiff's direction. They do not constitute evidence.

That you don't think that they constitute evidence really doesn't matter to me.
I will just put you down as pretending like there were no witnesses.

Just pointing out- not even Trump denied what the witnesses said- he just instead argued that no one could of heard his booming voice.

Judges don't believe it constitutes evidence, dumbass. They so-called "witnesses" witnessed nothing. They vented their spleens, and nobody cares about their worthless opinions.

Vindman and Jennifer Williams were on the call. Ambassador Sondland said there was quid pro quo - the White House meeting and the aid for the investigations. And the two State Department reps in the restaurant heard Trump asking if they were going to announce the investigations.

Sondland WANTED those State Department guys to overhear President Trump. He was showing off how much access he had to the President. Unless his phone was turned up loud enough for the others to hear Trump's voice and know what was said, they wouldn't be as impressed.

Sondland should remember that everybody else who has done Trump's dirty work, and carried out his illegal schemes, is either in jail, or awaiting sentencing.

What part of Sondland stating to a direct question that Trump told him he didn't want anything from Ukraine, no quid pro quo....do you not fucking understand?

And in a busy restaraunt he couldn't hear anything as fredo cuomo showed when he used his cell phone on a quiet set and the anchor next to him couldn't hear anything....

Everything these morons claim only comes back to bite them in the butt.

 

[Lesh]

It doesn't matter what Sondland's opinion is, he admitted there was nothing criminal on the call.

Sonderland is not a lawyer. That is a legal opinion he did not make.

He DID however DESCRIBE what was a quid Pro QUO

We have the transcript of the call.

And it clearly SHOWED that QPQ

The claim that anyone could overhear a call that wasn't on speaker doesn't pass the laugh test

What planet do you live on. I have heard many calls in exactly that manner

 

[Lesh]

What part of Sondland stating to a direct question that Trump told him he didn't want anything from Ukraine, no quid pro quo....do you not fucking understand?

What part of Trump "saying shit" do you not understand makes no difference.

If a mugger tells you

"This is not a robbery...give me your wallet",it's still a robbery regardless of what the mugger says.

 

[Winco]

LOL- Trump's entire Presidency has been about repeating lies often enough.
You can pretend that Trump didn't demand an investigation into his political rival in order to get a White House meeting and the release of military aid- but that is what the testimony showed.

Another Democrat drinking the kool-aid from Rachel Maddow.

How does the Rush, Hannity, Carlson, etc taste to you?

You are one sick puppy guzzling all that juice.

 

[idb]

Except that of course there is quid pro quo.

Please list your points of evidence.

You can skip the assumptions, presumptions, musings and speculations given by the "witnesses" under Schiff's direction. They do not constitute evidence.

That you don't think that they constitute evidence really doesn't matter to me.
I will just put you down as pretending like there were no witnesses.

Just pointing out- not even Trump denied what the witnesses said- he just instead argued that no one could of heard his booming voice.

Judges don't believe it constitutes evidence, dumbass. They so-called "witnesses" witnessed nothing. They vented their spleens, and nobody cares about their worthless opinions.

Vindman and Jennifer Williams were on the call. Ambassador Sondland said there was quid pro quo - the White House meeting and the aid for the investigations. And the two State Department reps in the restaurant heard Trump asking if they were going to announce the investigations.

Sondland WANTED those State Department guys to overhear President Trump. He was showing off how much access he had to the President. Unless his phone was turned up loud enough for the others to hear Trump's voice and know what was said, they wouldn't be as impressed.

Sondland should remember that everybody else who has done Trump's dirty work, and carried out his illegal schemes, is either in jail, or awaiting sentencing.

It doesn't matter what Sondland's opinion is, he admitted there was nothing criminal on the call. We have the transcript of the call.

The claim that anyone could overhear a call that wasn't on speaker doesn't pass the laugh test. Andrew Cuomo proved live on air.

There is no evidence of any crime, period.

The transcript hasn't been released.
It's hidden away in a secure server.
Why didn't you know that?

 

[bripat9643]

Please list your points of evidence.

You can skip the assumptions, presumptions, musings and speculations given by the "witnesses" under Schiff's direction. They do not constitute evidence.

That you don't think that they constitute evidence really doesn't matter to me.
I will just put you down as pretending like there were no witnesses.

Just pointing out- not even Trump denied what the witnesses said- he just instead argued that no one could of heard his booming voice.

Judges don't believe it constitutes evidence, dumbass. They so-called "witnesses" witnessed nothing. They vented their spleens, and nobody cares about their worthless opinions.

Vindman and Jennifer Williams were on the call. Ambassador Sondland said there was quid pro quo - the White House meeting and the aid for the investigations. And the two State Department reps in the restaurant heard Trump asking if they were going to announce the investigations.

Sondland WANTED those State Department guys to overhear President Trump. He was showing off how much access he had to the President. Unless his phone was turned up loud enough for the others to hear Trump's voice and know what was said, they wouldn't be as impressed.

Sondland should remember that everybody else who has done Trump's dirty work, and carried out his illegal schemes, is either in jail, or awaiting sentencing.

It doesn't matter what Sondland's opinion is, he admitted there was nothing criminal on the call. We have the transcript of the call.

The claim that anyone could overhear a call that wasn't on speaker doesn't pass the laugh test. Andrew Cuomo proved live on air.

There is no evidence of any crime, period.

The transcript hasn't been released.
It's hidden away in a secure server.
Why didn't you know that?

is it a double top secret server that not even the FBI knows about? Trump must have the entire FBI perjuring themselves to keep that a secret!

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't matter what Sondland's opinion is, he admitted there was nothing criminal on the call.

Sonderland is not a lawyer. That is a legal opinion he did not make.

He DID however DESCRIBE what was a quid Pro QUO

We have the transcript of the call.

And it clearly SHOWED that QPQ

The claim that anyone could overhear a call that wasn't on speaker doesn't pass the laugh test

What planet do you live on. I have heard many calls in exactly that manner

Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, moron.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed

When asked direct questions each witness said there was no quid pro quo...you have nothing.

When asked direct questions each witness said there was no quid pro quo...you have nothing.

Of course you lie. It's all you have.

Every witness said just the opposite. They all confirmed they understood the aid was withheld until investigations were ageeed to.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It doesn't matter what Sondland's opinion is, he admitted there was nothing criminal on the call.

Sonderland is not a lawyer. That is a legal opinion he did not make.

He DID however DESCRIBE what was a quid Pro QUO

We have the transcript of the call.

And it clearly SHOWED that QPQ

The claim that anyone could overhear a call that wasn't on speaker doesn't pass the laugh test

What planet do you live on. I have heard many calls in exactly that manner

Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, moron.

Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, moron.

Sure, dope.

 

[bripat9643]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed

When asked direct questions each witness said there was no quid pro quo...you have nothing.

When asked direct questions each witness said there was no quid pro quo...you have nothing.

Of course you lie. It's all you have.

Every witness said just the opposite. They all confirmed they understood the aid was withheld until investigations were ageeed to.

They all said the exact opposite, you fucking moron.

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't matter what Sondland's opinion is, he admitted there was nothing criminal on the call.

Sonderland is not a lawyer. That is a legal opinion he did not make.

He DID however DESCRIBE what was a quid Pro QUO

We have the transcript of the call.

And it clearly SHOWED that QPQ

The claim that anyone could overhear a call that wasn't on speaker doesn't pass the laugh test

What planet do you live on. I have heard many calls in exactly that manner

Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, moron.

Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, moron.

Sure, dope.

Go to the 3:20 mark

Sondland: "What do you want from Ukraine?"
Trump: "I want nothing. I want no quid quo pro. Tell Zelinski to do the right thing."

That's right, shit for brains.

You hear what you want to hear.

That's so beautifully liberal!

 

[The Purge]

 

[Lesh]

It doesn't matter what Sondland's opinion is, he admitted there was nothing criminal on the call.

Sonderland is not a lawyer. That is a legal opinion he did not make.

He DID however DESCRIBE what was a quid Pro QUO

We have the transcript of the call.

And it clearly SHOWED that QPQ

The claim that anyone could overhear a call that wasn't on speaker doesn't pass the laugh test

What planet do you live on. I have heard many calls in exactly that manner

Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, moron.

Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, moron.

Sure, dope.

Go to the 3:20 mark

Sondland: "What do you want from Ukraine?"
Trump: "I want nothing. I want no quid quo pro. Tell Zelinski to do the right thing."

That's right, shit for brains.

You hear what you want to hear.

That's so beautifully liberal!

You think Trump saying "This isn't a QPQ" while demanding exactly that is a reasonable defense???

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't matter what Sondland's opinion is, he admitted there was nothing criminal on the call.

Sonderland is not a lawyer. That is a legal opinion he did not make.

He DID however DESCRIBE what was a quid Pro QUO

We have the transcript of the call.

And it clearly SHOWED that QPQ

The claim that anyone could overhear a call that wasn't on speaker doesn't pass the laugh test

What planet do you live on. I have heard many calls in exactly that manner

Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, moron.

Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, moron.

Sure, dope.

Go to the 3:20 mark

Sondland: "What do you want from Ukraine?"
Trump: "I want nothing. I want no quid quo pro. Tell Zelinski to do the right thing."

That's right, shit for brains.

You hear what you want to hear.

That's so beautifully liberal!

You think Trump saying "This isn't a QPQ" while demanding exactly that is a reasonable defense???

He didn't do anything of the sort.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It doesn't matter what Sondland's opinion is, he admitted there was nothing criminal on the call.

Sonderland is not a lawyer. That is a legal opinion he did not make.

He DID however DESCRIBE what was a quid Pro QUO

We have the transcript of the call.

And it clearly SHOWED that QPQ

The claim that anyone could overhear a call that wasn't on speaker doesn't pass the laugh test

What planet do you live on. I have heard many calls in exactly that manner

Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, moron.

Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, moron.

Sure, dope.

Go to the 3:20 mark

Sondland: "What do you want from Ukraine?"
Trump: "I want nothing. I want no quid quo pro. Tell Zelinski to do the right thing."

That's right, shit for brains.

You hear what you want to hear.

That's so beautifully liberal!

Try again, tard.
Sondland was relating what the president said not what he understood the situation to be.

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't matter what Sondland's opinion is, he admitted there was nothing criminal on the call.

Sonderland is not a lawyer. That is a legal opinion he did not make.

He DID however DESCRIBE what was a quid Pro QUO

We have the transcript of the call.

And it clearly SHOWED that QPQ

The claim that anyone could overhear a call that wasn't on speaker doesn't pass the laugh test

What planet do you live on. I have heard many calls in exactly that manner

Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, moron.

Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, moron.

Sure, dope.

Go to the 3:20 mark

Sondland: "What do you want from Ukraine?"
Trump: "I want nothing. I want no quid quo pro. Tell Zelinski to do the right thing."

That's right, shit for brains.

You hear what you want to hear.

That's so beautifully liberal!

Try again, tard.
Sondland was relating what the president said not what he understood the situation to be.

What he understood is not admissible evidence, dumbass.

 

[Lesh]

He DESCRIBED "what he understood" and what he described can ONLY be understood as extortion...which by it's very nature and specifically in this case included a quid pro quo

 

[Thinker101]

He DESCRIBED "what he understood" and what he described can ONLY be understood as extortion...which by it's very nature and specifically in this case included a quid pro quo

Great, then the two of you have a lot in common...both of you understand squat.

 

[bripat9643]

He DESCRIBED "what he understood" and what he described can ONLY be understood as extortion...which by it's very nature and specifically in this case included a quid pro quo

What he "understood" isn't evidence. Only what he saw or heard is evidence.