Quid Pro Quo

[the other mike]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Is quid pro quo the same as son of a bitch ?

Did the VP ever mention his son when he was discussing Obama's foreign policy objectives? Was that demand something that went outside the normal diplomatic channels, without the consultation of our allies in the region? Did Obama send his private attorney to set up the specific demands that Joe's son not be investigated in exchange for our aid?

When we're talking about a job that pays $80,000 a month to a kid who just got kicked out of the Navy Reserves for cocaine, who by the way knows nothing about the oil and gas business? Um?m? ....yes I think there are some questions to ask.

Pardon me if I doubt your sincerity based upon your disinterest in Trump's offspring.

No pardon me. If you're a partisan Democrat after what's been going on the last three years I would say the burden of proof is on you this time.

 

[sealybobo]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

They are having a hard time with this because now the guy who admitted there was quidproquo is now saying that's not what he meant. The lying media is evil they say for using what he said against him. He says that's not what he said, even though that's exactly what he said. Amazing how they can say something on camera and the next day deny they said what they said.

How dare they quote him and make a big deal out of him admitting guilt. We are living in crazy times where Trump is proving that the Republican party will allow a criminal to run their party.

Lindsay Graham Suggests Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Might Convince Him To Back Impeachment
The Republican senator also called Trump an “equal opportunity abuser of people” and a “handful” in an interview with Axios.

Graham’s interview on Tuesday preceded acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s declaration Thursday that Trump’s Ukraine dealing concerning Biden was a quid pro quo.

Mick's problem is that there is nothing wrong with a quid pro quo so long as both what we offer and what we demand are official US policy. The problem is that nothing Mick has said that we demanded was official US policy: either reinvesting Hunter and trying to tie in Joe too, or Crowdstrike - the US intelligence committee and senate closed the book on that bs long ago. And Trump has Rudy going behind the Dept of State's back on this stuff.

That said, the day Leslie votes to remove Trump from office is the day he either comes out or turns straight, neither of which will ever happen.

I think Republicans are missing a great opportunity here. Imagine if Trump stepped down or was impeached and the GOP nominated a moderate Republican to run in 2020. That moderate can say "I will give you the great economy Trump gave you minus all the bullshit/baggage that comes with Trump. And no more horrible foreign policy. No more making our allies our enemies.

If Trump wasn't an asshole he would have won for sure in 2020. Now, I don't think so. I think he has done enough damage that a lot of people who didn't vote are going to show up to vote him out and a lot of people who voted for him are not going to show up.

How many former generals and republicans have to speak out against Trump before we take his hand off the red button? Trump is insane. And he is clearly a criminal. He surrounds himself with horrible yes men and even they can't say yes to what he is asking for.

I'm not sure what the republican party is anymore. The first tax cut on corporations is defensible on the theory that taxes on biz actually reduce money for expansion. The second tax cut on .1% and 1% individ rates in red states, while ending Salt taxes in states that actually pay the most federal taxes for welfare to red states, is not economically defensible.

Tariffs inevitably make goods more expensive regardless where they are made, and there's no empirical support that taxes on mfrting raise wages. So supporters of the gop on this issue are economic illiterates. Theft of IP hurts the US economy, but tariffs and IP theft are separate issues that do different things. Trump attempts to tie them together with China, but so far China is fine with reducing exports to the US, but not fine on changing on IP.

Not all Trump base voters are illiterates or racists. I'm all for a secure border and registering non-citizen US workers. Trump's not accomplishing either, but even the gop is fighting him.

I'm all for securing the border and registering non citizen US workers too. Things that will actually work.

I was thinking about this the other day. Can you go to Mexico on a vacation? Is it hard to go there? No? So then why should it be hard for Mexicans to come vacation here? The problem is they are coming here and staying. And working. So lets go after illegal employers. So far we raid illegal employers, fuck with a few illegals, but do nothing to the illegal employer. If we don't scare employers into being afraid to hire illegals or suffer jail time and lose their business', this problem will never go away. Trump wants to play wack a mole with illegal workers and leave illegal employers alone. Same way we don't go bomb the shit out of the columbian coke manufacturers. We just punish the end users.

 

[the other mike]

All about undermining Trump at every turn because they know they can't beat him in 2020.

 

[sealybobo]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Is quid pro quo the same as son of a bitch ?

Did the VP ever mention his son when he was discussing Obama's foreign policy objectives? Was that demand something that went outside the normal diplomatic channels, without the consultation of our allies in the region? Did Obama send his private attorney to set up the specific demands that Joe's son not be investigated in exchange for our aid?

When we're talking about a job that pays $80,000 a month to a kid who just got kicked out of the Navy Reserves for cocaine, who by the way knows nothing about the oil and gas business? Um?m? ....yes I think there are some questions to ask.

First of all, Bush should have never owned the Texas Rangers or became governor of Texas, let alone POTUS.

Second of all, trying to make this about Biden's son is sleazy and not going to work. The guy got up and defended his resume. And he should not have to defend how much he as a private citizen makes. Not from you middle class Republicans who defend out of control CEO pay. Now you care what one guy makes? How about the rest of them? Do you agree they all make too much too? Then you are a liberal dummy!

You Republicans want it both ways. You can't have it both ways. And stop trying to make Trump committing impeachable offenses about a guy named Hunter Biden. What about Don Jr.? He should have been charged and in jail too not just Michael Cohen. Only because he's the President's son. So if you care about Biden then you can't vote for Trump. But we all know you don't care about Biden, other than he's your political rival.

 

[the other mike]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Is quid pro quo the same as son of a bitch ?

Did the VP ever mention his son when he was discussing Obama's foreign policy objectives? Was that demand something that went outside the normal diplomatic channels, without the consultation of our allies in the region? Did Obama send his private attorney to set up the specific demands that Joe's son not be investigated in exchange for our aid?

When we're talking about a job that pays $80,000 a month to a kid who just got kicked out of the Navy Reserves for cocaine, who by the way knows nothing about the oil and gas business? Um?m? ....yes I think there are some questions to ask.

First of all, Bush should have never owned the Texas Rangers or became governor of Texas, let alone POTUS.

Second of all, trying to make this about Biden's son is sleazy and not going to work. The guy got up and defended his resume. And he should not have to defend how much he as a private citizen makes. Not from you middle class Republicans who defend out of control CEO pay. Now you care what one guy makes? How about the rest of them? Do you agree they all make too much too? Then you are a liberal dummy!

You Republicans want it both ways. You can't have it both ways. And stop trying to make Trump committing impeachable offenses about a guy named Hunter Biden. What about Don Jr.? He should have been charged and in jail too not just Michael Cohen. Only because he's the President's son. So if you care about Biden then you can't vote for Trump. But we all know you don't care about Biden, other than he's your political rival.

Wow you really like being wrong a lot don't you ? I'm not a Republican ..... never have been .....and that doesn't mean I can't be a Tump supporter though does it. ? When you learn to think for yourself maybe we'll have an actual conversation.....

 

[BlindBoo]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Is quid pro quo the same as son of a bitch ?

Did the VP ever mention his son when he was discussing Obama's foreign policy objectives? Was that demand something that went outside the normal diplomatic channels, without the consultation of our allies in the region? Did Obama send his private attorney to set up the specific demands that Joe's son not be investigated in exchange for our aid?

When we're talking about a job that pays $80,000 a month to a kid who just got kicked out of the Navy Reserves for cocaine, who by the way knows nothing about the oil and gas business? Um?m? ....yes I think there are some questions to ask.

So you want to charge him with what? But we all know criminal charges are not and have never been pending in regards to Joe's remaining son. Nor is that the objective, imo. All Trumpybear wants is a very public announcement of an investigation of the Bidens. The Alternative-facts News Networks would take it from there and have Biden's (and the DNC) convicted by nightfall.

 

[bendog]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Is quid pro quo the same as son of a bitch ?

Did the VP ever mention his son when he was discussing Obama's foreign policy objectives? Was that demand something that went outside the normal diplomatic channels, without the consultation of our allies in the region? Did Obama send his private attorney to set up the specific demands that Joe's son not be investigated in exchange for our aid?

When we're talking about a job that pays $80,000 a month to a kid who just got kicked out of the Navy Reserves for cocaine, who by the way knows nothing about the oil and gas business? Um?m? ....yes I think there are some questions to ask.

Pardon me if I doubt your sincerity based upon your disinterest in Trump's offspring.

No pardon me. If you're a partisan Democrat after what's been going on the last three years I would say the burden of proof is on you this time.

Not me. I think Hunter and the Trump spawn suck. and I've posted such. Go away Trumpsucker

 

[the other mike]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Is quid pro quo the same as son of a bitch ?

Did the VP ever mention his son when he was discussing Obama's foreign policy objectives? Was that demand something that went outside the normal diplomatic channels, without the consultation of our allies in the region? Did Obama send his private attorney to set up the specific demands that Joe's son not be investigated in exchange for our aid?

When we're talking about a job that pays $80,000 a month to a kid who just got kicked out of the Navy Reserves for cocaine, who by the way knows nothing about the oil and gas business? Um?m? ....yes I think there are some questions to ask.

So you want to charge him with what? But we all know criminal charges are not and have never been pending in regards to Joe's remaining son. Nor is that the objective, imo. All Trumpybear wants is a very public announcement of an investigation of the Bidens. The Alternative-facts News Networks would take it from there and have Biden's (and the DNC) convicted by nightfall.

We know what you guys are all about.

 

[bendog]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

They are having a hard time with this because now the guy who admitted there was quidproquo is now saying that's not what he meant. The lying media is evil they say for using what he said against him. He says that's not what he said, even though that's exactly what he said. Amazing how they can say something on camera and the next day deny they said what they said.

How dare they quote him and make a big deal out of him admitting guilt. We are living in crazy times where Trump is proving that the Republican party will allow a criminal to run their party.

Lindsay Graham Suggests Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Might Convince Him To Back Impeachment
The Republican senator also called Trump an “equal opportunity abuser of people” and a “handful” in an interview with Axios.

Graham’s interview on Tuesday preceded acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s declaration Thursday that Trump’s Ukraine dealing concerning Biden was a quid pro quo.

Mick's problem is that there is nothing wrong with a quid pro quo so long as both what we offer and what we demand are official US policy. The problem is that nothing Mick has said that we demanded was official US policy: either reinvesting Hunter and trying to tie in Joe too, or Crowdstrike - the US intelligence committee and senate closed the book on that bs long ago. And Trump has Rudy going behind the Dept of State's back on this stuff.

That said, the day Leslie votes to remove Trump from office is the day he either comes out or turns straight, neither of which will ever happen.

I think Republicans are missing a great opportunity here. Imagine if Trump stepped down or was impeached and the GOP nominated a moderate Republican to run in 2020. That moderate can say "I will give you the great economy Trump gave you minus all the bullshit/baggage that comes with Trump. And no more horrible foreign policy. No more making our allies our enemies.

If Trump wasn't an asshole he would have won for sure in 2020. Now, I don't think so. I think he has done enough damage that a lot of people who didn't vote are going to show up to vote him out and a lot of people who voted for him are not going to show up.

How many former generals and republicans have to speak out against Trump before we take his hand off the red button? Trump is insane. And he is clearly a criminal. He surrounds himself with horrible yes men and even they can't say yes to what he is asking for.

I'm not sure what the republican party is anymore. The first tax cut on corporations is defensible on the theory that taxes on biz actually reduce money for expansion. The second tax cut on .1% and 1% individ rates in red states, while ending Salt taxes in states that actually pay the most federal taxes for welfare to red states, is not economically defensible.

Tariffs inevitably make goods more expensive regardless where they are made, and there's no empirical support that taxes on mfrting raise wages. So supporters of the gop on this issue are economic illiterates. Theft of IP hurts the US economy, but tariffs and IP theft are separate issues that do different things. Trump attempts to tie them together with China, but so far China is fine with reducing exports to the US, but not fine on changing on IP.

Not all Trump base voters are illiterates or racists. I'm all for a secure border and registering non-citizen US workers. Trump's not accomplishing either, but even the gop is fighting him.

I'm all for securing the border and registering non citizen US workers too. Things that will actually work.

I was thinking about this the other day. Can you go to Mexico on a vacation? Is it hard to go there? No? So then why should it be hard for Mexicans to come vacation here? The problem is they are coming here and staying. And working. So lets go after illegal employers. So far we raid illegal employers, fuck with a few illegals, but do nothing to the illegal employer. If we don't scare employers into being afraid to hire illegals or suffer jail time and lose their business', this problem will never go away. Trump wants to play wack a mole with illegal workers and leave illegal employers alone. Same way we don't go bomb the shit out of the columbian coke manufacturers. We just punish the end users.

That's it. We'll never really reduce illegal workers unless we reduce illegal employers because …. workers can travel while employers can't. BUT neither party wants to do that. Trump can build a wall, but there's never going to be a shortage of illegal workers unless employers are fined …. Yuuuugely.

 

[basquebromance]

Senator Biden appointed Senator Obama to the Foreign Relations Committee.

President Obama appointed Biden Vice President.


QUID PRO QUO! QUID PRO QUO! QUID PRO QUO! QUID PRO QUO! QUID PRO QUO! QUID PRO QUO! QUID PRO QUO! QUID PRO QUO!

 

[Syriusly]

Now Trump is changing his story from 'no quid pro quo' to Trump is just a corruption fighter!

Fighting corruption all around the world- just so long as he can say corruption and Biden in the same sentence.

Where did Trump ask for a quid pro quo? It doesn't exist anywhere in the transcript. Besides if one is investigating corruption, they are not asking for a quid pro quo. We knew about dirty Biden 2 years ago and now, the heat is coming down on him. Frankly, Trump would win easily going up against Biden.

Read the transcript and read the texts from the diplomats. It is VERY clear that the White House meeting with Trump was dependent on the President of Ukraine publicly announcing an investigation of Biden.

Why did Trump demand a public announcement of an investigation of Biden? Because this was all about politics.

I read the transcript and there is NOTHING in there where Trump withholds anything in requesting an investigation of corruption. And isn't it ironic that Biden's job was to root out corruption in the new Ukrainian regime? When it surfaced that Biden's son was involved in Burisma and getting paid heftily for a position he had absolutely no expertise in, Washington eyebrows raised but, the President at the time (Obama) said Biden had no conflict of interest. You really have to be a world-class dope to think Biden ain't dirty.

You have to be a world-class Trumpkin idiot to think that Biden is 'dirty' and Trump is clean- because that is what Trump tells you.

What I find fascinating about you Trumpkins is how you ignore the actual evidence and just believe what the right wing media sites feed you.

There is absolutely no evidence that Joe Biden did anything illegal.
Yet we have the President of the United States calling on Ukraine and China to investigate him.

And once again- who are the only persons that our Nervous Nancy President is calling on foreign countries to investigate?

His political rival and his rivals family.

Coincidence?

Not at all

 

[Syriusly]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Is quid pro quo the same as son of a bitch ?

Did the VP ever mention his son when he was discussing Obama's foreign policy objectives? Was that demand something that went outside the normal diplomatic channels, without the consultation of our allies in the region? Did Obama send his private attorney to set up the specific demands that Joe's son not be investigated in exchange for our aid?

When we're talking about a job that pays $80,000 a month to a kid who just got kicked out of the Navy Reserves for cocaine, who by the way knows nothing about the oil and gas business? Um?m? ....yes I think there are some questions to ask.

First of all, Bush should have never owned the Texas Rangers or became governor of Texas, let alone POTUS.

Second of all, trying to make this about Biden's son is sleazy and not going to work. The guy got up and defended his resume. And he should not have to defend how much he as a private citizen makes. Not from you middle class Republicans who defend out of control CEO pay. Now you care what one guy makes? How about the rest of them? Do you agree they all make too much too? Then you are a liberal dummy!

You Republicans want it both ways. You can't have it both ways. And stop trying to make Trump committing impeachable offenses about a guy named Hunter Biden. What about Don Jr.? He should have been charged and in jail too not just Michael Cohen. Only because he's the President's son. So if you care about Biden then you can't vote for Trump. But we all know you don't care about Biden, other than he's your political rival.

Yeah the irony and hypocrisy of the Trump's accusing the Biden's of corruption or nepotism is some chutzpah.

 

[basquebromance]

"The VP is a man in a cataleptic fit. he cannot speak, he cannot move, he suffers no pain, he's personally conscious of all that goes on but has no part in it" - VP Thomas Riley Marshall


how times have changed!

 

[Syriusly]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

They are having a hard time with this because now the guy who admitted there was quidproquo is now saying that's not what he meant. The lying media is evil they say for using what he said against him. He says that's not what he said, even though that's exactly what he said. Amazing how they can say something on camera and the next day deny they said what they said.

How dare they quote him and make a big deal out of him admitting guilt. We are living in crazy times where Trump is proving that the Republican party will allow a criminal to run their party.

Lindsay Graham Suggests Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Might Convince Him To Back Impeachment
The Republican senator also called Trump an “equal opportunity abuser of people” and a “handful” in an interview with Axios.

Graham’s interview on Tuesday preceded acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s declaration Thursday that Trump’s Ukraine dealing concerning Biden was a quid pro quo.

Mick's problem is that there is nothing wrong with a quid pro quo so long as both what we offer and what we demand are official US policy. The problem is that nothing Mick has said that we demanded was official US policy: either reinvesting Hunter and trying to tie in Joe too, or Crowdstrike - the US intelligence committee and senate closed the book on that bs long ago. And Trump has Rudy going behind the Dept of State's back on this stuff.

That said, the day Leslie votes to remove Trump from office is the day he either comes out or turns straight, neither of which will ever happen.

I think Republicans are missing a great opportunity here. Imagine if Trump stepped down or was impeached and the GOP nominated a moderate Republican to run in 2020. That moderate can say "I will give you the great economy Trump gave you minus all the bullshit/baggage that comes with Trump. And no more horrible foreign policy. No more making our allies our enemies.

If Trump wasn't an asshole he would have won for sure in 2020. Now, I don't think so. I think he has done enough damage that a lot of people who didn't vote are going to show up to vote him out and a lot of people who voted for him are not going to show up.

How many former generals and republicans have to speak out against Trump before we take his hand off the red button? Trump is insane. And he is clearly a criminal. He surrounds himself with horrible yes men and even they can't say yes to what he is asking for.

I'm not sure what the republican party is anymore. The first tax cut on corporations is defensible on the theory that taxes on biz actually reduce money for expansion. The second tax cut on .1% and 1% individ rates in red states, while ending Salt taxes in states that actually pay the most federal taxes for welfare to red states, is not economically defensible.

Tariffs inevitably make goods more expensive regardless where they are made, and there's no empirical support that taxes on mfrting raise wages. So supporters of the gop on this issue are economic illiterates. Theft of IP hurts the US economy, but tariffs and IP theft are separate issues that do different things. Trump attempts to tie them together with China, but so far China is fine with reducing exports to the US, but not fine on changing on IP.

Not all Trump base voters are illiterates or racists. I'm all for a secure border and registering non-citizen US workers. Trump's not accomplishing either, but even the gop is fighting him.

I'm all for securing the border and registering non citizen US workers too. Things that will actually work.

I was thinking about this the other day. Can you go to Mexico on a vacation? Is it hard to go there? No? So then why should it be hard for Mexicans to come vacation here? The problem is they are coming here and staying. And working. So lets go after illegal employers. So far we raid illegal employers, fuck with a few illegals, but do nothing to the illegal employer. If we don't scare employers into being afraid to hire illegals or suffer jail time and lose their business', this problem will never go away. Trump wants to play wack a mole with illegal workers and leave illegal employers alone. Same way we don't go bomb the shit out of the columbian coke manufacturers. We just punish the end users.

I am in favor of comprehensive immigration reform that includes real steps to secure our border, crack down on employers who hire illegals, reasonable temporary worker programs for American companies to use legal immigrant labor, legislatively addresses asylum reform and takes care of the DACA people.

 

[the other mike]

Chinese Reportedly Hacked Hillary Server. During Same Time, 12 CIA Sources Reportedly Killed by China. Coincidence?

 

[Syriusly]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Now of course we have the admission by Trump's Chief of Staff that, at least in part, the funds were held up until Ukraine agreed to investigate the mythical DNC server that the Right Wing has convinced Nervous Nancy is in Ukraine.

Looking forward to finding out what Bill Taylor has to say this week.

 

[Syriusly]

Chinese Reportedly Hacked Hillary Server. During Same Time, 12 CIA Sources Reportedly Killed by China. Coincidence?

lol
Fake News from Fake Media.

 

[the other mike]

Chinese Reportedly Hacked Hillary Server. During Same Time, 12 CIA Sources Reportedly Killed by China. Coincidence?

lol
Fake News from Fake Media.

Yeah You Keep On Believing that huckleberry.
Clinton Emails Held Indirect References to Undercover CIA Officers

 

[the other mike]

Well, well, well. This doesn't bode well for Hillary

 

[bendog]

how newsworthy