• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

The White House releases transcript of Trump call with Ukraine (OP Updated)

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
7,229
5,160
1,435
Yes I agree to some extent. Even though I'd prefer Trump removed so this country can calm down. My interest in the topic was more to see the partisanship of some people. Even when presented with fairly clear evidence they still don't want to admit he did anything wrong or isn't playing the same shady game all politicians play.

Just goes to show you people don't really care about truth. Just seeing their own personal agendas being supported and some archaic form of tribalism. Then again some people believe in an invisible sky fairy who they pray to - so why should anyone even be surprised at this point. Millions of years of evolution, and we have adults effectively running around believing in santa claus.

This impeachment thing will be fun to watch. Reminds me of when the podesta emails started dropping.
I find the story quite dull and it's being drip fed over several months. I'd rather everyone just work on things that help real people instead of being focused on garbage that isn't important to anyone living outside of the Washington bubble. The Democrats promised to work on infrastructure, healthcare, etc. in 2018 and all we have is endless investigations.

It sounds like there has been a lot of shady stuff going down in Ukraine. I don't see a problem in Trump asking that stuff to be looked into. I believe that is legally a part of his job before turning over aid. If we are going to give them a giant pile of taxpayer cash and there is something they can do for us then great. At the very least we should make sure the aid is going to the right places. I doubt Trump's motives around this were pure though, which is where things get a little murky. In the end the aid was released though and there was no investigation launched. I don't feel this is impeachable and worth putting the country on hold for over a year. It just strikes me as petty bickering at this point and a waste of time when better things could be accomplished. This is all just political theater. There's an election coming up so at this point the voters can decide how important this is at the ballot box.

I'm not a religous person, but I don't really agree with your dig against religion. That's not really on topic though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

Foxbat

is on their last warning for console warring
May 30, 2018
657
717
425
Yes I agree to some extent. Even though I'd prefer Trump removed so this country can calm down. My interest in the topic was more to see the partisanship of some people.

Just goes to show you people don't really care about truth. Just seeing their own personal agendas being supported and some archaic form of tribalism. Then again some people believe in an invisible sky fairy who they pray to - so why should anyone even be surprised at this point. Millions of years of evolution, and we have adults effectively running around believing in santa claus.

This impeachment thing will be fun to watch. Reminds me of when the podesta emails started dropping.
Sonderland changing his story certainly helps the Dems case more than anything else has recently. I still don't know if it'll be enough to get anywhere though.

Your posts over the last page or so seems odd to me compared to your earlier posts. You're boasting because why exactly? Now you at least partially admit that Trump getting removed is very unlikely, and furthermore state that your interest in the subject was to "see the partisanship of some people".

The biggest flip you've made though is admitting this... "Even when presented with fairly clear evidence they still don't want to admit he did anything wrong or isn't playing the same shady game all politicians play." I clearly pointed this out to you previously in this thread. The impeachment bucket doesn't hold water because what Trump is accused of doing here isn't out of the norm for politicians. The very fact that he was asking the Ukraine to look into Biden for basically the very same thing makes all of this impeachment stuff absurd.

And to add onto all of that, there still isn't enough evidence in the first place. All these witnesses you so proudly stand behind are using language that giddy Democrats aren't paying attention to. Almost all these witnesses aren't providing any details or proof of anything. If you're paying attention, they almost always use the phrase "I think" or "I believe". Even Sonderlands ammendment to his previous statements includes this. Too much "thinking" and "believing" and not near enough "knowing" or "witnessing".

Even if there was a legit case to be made here, (which might have been possible) the Dems have screwed the pooch so bad, that any chance they had at this becoming a success is lost. They've literally mucked it up at every step of the way.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
5,522
6,289
1,560
Meanwhile, as this process slogs on:




They're trying to motivate Dem supporters with that coverage. New NY Times/Sienna poll shows Biden, Warren and Sanders have all lost a lot of ground against Trump in battleground states:

It's going to be exactly like the 2016 election where the polls magically narrow the closer the election comes. Can't have the final results be too off, after all. That would be suspicious.
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
Sonderland changing his story certainly helps the Dems case more than anything else has recently. I still don't know if it'll be enough to get anywhere though.

Your posts over the last page or so seems odd to me compared to your earlier posts. You're boasting because why exactly? Now you at least partially admit that Trump getting removed is very unlikely, and furthermore state that your interest in the subject was to "see the partisanship of some people".

The biggest flip you've made though is admitting this... "Even when presented with fairly clear evidence they still don't want to admit he did anything wrong or isn't playing the same shady game all politicians play." I clearly pointed this out to you previously in this thread. The impeachment bucket doesn't hold water because what Trump is accused of doing here isn't out of the norm for politicians. The very fact that he was asking the Ukraine to look into Biden for basically the very same thing makes all of this impeachment stuff absurd.

And to add onto all of that, there still isn't enough evidence in the first place. All these witnesses you so proudly stand behind are using language that giddy Democrats aren't paying attention to. Almost all these witnesses aren't providing any details or proof of anything. If you're paying attention, they almost always use the phrase "I think" or "I believe". Even Sonderlands ammendment to his previous statements includes this. Too much "thinking" and "believing" and not near enough "knowing" or "witnessing".

Even if there was a legit case to be made here, (which might have been possible) the Dems have screwed the pooch so bad, that any chance they had at this becoming a success is lost. They've literally mucked it up at every step of the way.
There is plenty of evidence for wrongdoing and it's pretty compelling. The facts and testimonies tell a pretty consistent story. As you may have noticed, people in this thread have needed to move the goal posts so much that we went from. "It's just like the Russia thing" to "it doesn't really matter". Sounds like they were slapped around with a bit of evidence and became somewhat quiet, no doubt eating some crow at the moment.

Having corrupt politicians is not unusual, but it doesn't mean we should accept them. Whenever possible we need to weed them out and replace them with honest folks. At this point Trump is a shameless liar, and on top of it, an idiot. I always thought doctoring the hurricane map on national television would be his low point, but this Ukraine thing is even worse, he's so consumed by his own narcism and oblivious that he stepped into a giant mound of shit for no good reason. Biden would have gone away regardless, now Trump has to deal with this new shitstorm. I just feel bad for his supporters; must be tiring and embarrassing to defend an incompetent oaf running around amped up on Sudafed.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,045
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
I just feel bad for his supporters; must be tiring and embarrassing to defend an incompetent oaf running around amped up on Sudafed.
You should just copypaste this into every reply you make, since it sums up your sentiments each and every time.

We know you don't really care about Trump. You're only here to take out your pent-up frustration on imaginary political opponents to add some spice to your life. How you'll survive the 2020 loss or even the 2024 loss is beyond me.
 

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
571
260
460
There is plenty of evidence for wrongdoing and it's pretty compelling. The facts and testimonies tell a pretty consistent story. As you may have noticed, people in this thread have needed to move the goal posts so much that we went from. "It's just like the Russia thing" to "it doesn't really matter". Sounds like they were slapped around with a bit of evidence and became somewhat quiet, no doubt eating some crow at the moment.
Help us out. Please:

1. note the impeachable offense (high crime, bribery...).
2. Provide evidence for the offense named in 1.

Should be easy for you given your comments, but many of us need it clearly laid out because we those running the “impeachment inquiry” certainly haven’t been clear in this regard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
Help us out. Please:

1. note the impeachable offense (high crime, bribery...).
2. Provide evidence for the offense named in 1.

Should be easy for you given your comments, but many of us need it clearly laid out because we those running the “impeachment inquiry” certainly haven’t been clear in this regard.
By all means,:

1) Running a covert operation to get dirt on a political opponent for personal gains, using foreign aid as leverage
2) List of evidence:
- Mentioning said political opponent and son directly in conversation with said foreign party. Asking explicitly that they be looked into in relation to previous instances that have already been resolved. Inappropriately asking said foreign party to work with personal lawyer having no affiliation with government.
- Withholding foreign aid that has already been approved. Providing no valid reason for doing this. Foreign party finds out about the hold on aid while personal lawyer is running covert op in Ukraine collecting data. Foreign party is caught off guard and confused as no reason was given.
- Personal lawyer confirms he met with Ukraine officials to explicitly ask for dirt on the Bidens
- 4 people (US government) deeply involved in Ukraine relations confirm that all circumstances point towards the president attempting to execute a quid pro quo to collect information on a political opponent, acting outside of conventional governement channels. These accounts are with a person who spoke to the president directory (Sondland) and one who is also biased on his favor (previous 1 million donation). The rest are bipartisan, with one decorated military official with first hand experience of the call.

In before:
1) "But Trump says it wasn't quid pro quo!!!" - yes, because he's that much of an idiot to incriminate himself, and
2) "But the Ukrainian president says there was no pressure" - yes, the Ukrainian president, who is an actor and comedian, will throw Trump under the bus, knowing the Ukraine is facing some of their hardest times in recent history, not knowing what exactly will happen in the US (ie. If Trump was to stay in power or get reelected Ukraine would be screwed).
3) "it's not a high crime!!!" - the clause for impeachment is interpretable. It doesn't need to be an indictable crime. Enough people just need to see that something inappropriate was done. A clear abuse of power for personal gain would satisfy this.

I didn't write this post for you, because you are hopeless. I wrote it for the people who are genuinly curious and want to get to the bottom of this. Feel free to cross check all my points.
 
Dec 15, 2011
5,164
11,956
1,010
How is it that people don't know that "provide evidence" doesn't mean "write things that agree with what I just said" ?

Cows can fly.

This sentence is evidence that the claim made above is 100% true.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,572
447
485
Trumps fate lies in the senate and, barring trump having sex with Mitch McConnells wife, he’s going to clear him of any potential crimes. I think the house knows this anyway.

fake edit: or maybe Mitch would be honored by that
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
Yes I agree to some extent. Even though I'd prefer Trump removed so this country can calm down. My interest in the topic was more to see the partisanship of some people. Even when presented with fairly clear evidence they still don't want to admit he did anything wrong or isn't playing the same shady game all politicians play.

Just goes to show you people don't really care about truth. Just seeing their own personal agendas being supported and some archaic form of tribalism. Then again some people believe in an invisible sky fairy who they pray to - so why should anyone even be surprised at this point. Millions of years of evolution, and we have adults effectively running around believing in santa claus.

This impeachment thing will be fun to watch. Reminds me of when the podesta emails started dropping.
You need to get over yourself. Not everyone thinks he did something wrong even when we agree as to what occurred, and that does not make us tribal. Have you really never considered that despite the feigned indignation by the media and politicians, a lot of people actually support investigating how a vice president's son got paid that much for no reason at all, all while his dad was running point on foreign policy there, and dangling a billion dollar loan out if the guy investigating his son was not fired.

I'll say it right now. If Mike Pence's kid gets the same type of sweetheart deal from a country that Mike Pence is giving a billion dollar check to, I want him investigated too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
You need to get over yourself. Not everyone thinks he did something wrong even when we agree as to what occurred, and that does not make us tribal. Have you really never considered that despite the feigned indignation by the media and politicians, a lot of people actually support investigating how a vice president's son got paid that much for no reason at all, all while his dad was running point on foreign policy there, and dangling a billion dollar loan out if the guy investigating his son was not fired.

I'll say it right now. If Mike Pence's kid gets the same type of sweetheart deal from a country that Mike Pence is giving a billion dollar check to, I want him investigated too.
Well there it is.
If the best argument now is "he did nothing wrong, in my opinion" then this just becomes a subjective game of perspective. I'm just glad some people here had the balls to admit that he did in fact do what he is accused of.
Since the Dems are justified this time, since he is doubling down on lying, eventually more people will be convinced that he is just a bullshitter who doesn't care about anyone but himself. This will be enough to tarnish his reputation as well as leave a permanent black mark on the GOP. The recent election results may be a sign of things to come
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,045
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Well there it is.
If the best argument now is "he did nothing wrong, in my opinion" then this just becomes a subjective game of perspective.
Thankfully, a team at the DOJ already reviewed Trump's phone call and provided a determination. The folks who choose to continue ignoring that are the ones playing the "subjective game of perspective".

Or are you conflating "he did nothing wrong on the phone call" with "he did nothing wrong in all of the latest drummed-up accusations"?

Because the accusations and the original defense of "he did nothing wrong" was about the phone call. You know that. I know that. Attempting to smudge the two together is dishonest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
Well there it is.
If the best argument now is "he did nothing wrong, in my opinion" then this just becomes a subjective game of perspective. I'm just glad some people here had the balls to admit that he did in fact do what he is accused of.
Since the Dems are justified this time, since he is doubling down on lying, eventually more people will be convinced that he is just a bullshitter who doesn't care about anyone but himself. This will be enough to tarnish his reputation as well as leave a permanent black mark on the GOP. The recent election results may be a sign of things to come
LOL. You don't really believe this will tarnish his reputation in any meaningful way. In the past few years he has been accused of being a failed businessman (LOL - the dude is a billionaire), a rapist, a wife cheater (very plausible), a Russian spy, a traitor, a racist, a misognyst, every phobe under the book, and a guy who pays Russian whores to piss all over him. And I'm probably leaving a lot out.

Really, honestly, no joke - do not hold your breath if you waiting for this to tarnish his reputation in any meaningful way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and cryptoadam

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
LOL. You don't really believe this will tarnish his reputation in any meaningful way. In the past few years he has been accused of being a failed businessman (LOL - the dude is a billionaire), a rapist, a wife cheater (very plausible), a Russian spy, a traitor, a racist, a misognyst, every phobe under the book, and a guy who pays Russian whores to piss all over him. And I'm probably leaving a lot out.

Really, honestly, no joke - do not hold your breath if you waiting for this to tarnish his reputation in any meaningful way.
Among Democrats his reputation is shot. Republican support is what is at stake. Sure he was wrongfully accused many times (and rightfully too). Anything that will tip the scales will eat away at his support. They got him firmly by the balls this time, and believe it or not some honest folks would prefer not to have a corrupt pathological liar as president.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
Among Democrats his reputation is shot. Republican support is what is at stake. Sure he was wrongfully accused many times (and rightfully too). Anything that will tip the scales will eat away at his support. They got him firmly by the balls this time, and believe it or not some honest folks would prefer not to have a corrupt pathological liar as president.
If Biden gets the nomination your hypothesis may hold water. If Warren or Bernie gets it, no way it does (in any meaningful way). No one who would consider Trump will vote for those two over this.
 

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
3,484
1,863
475
Finland
...and a guy who pays Russian whores to piss all over him.
It's weird how this is now what a lot of both Trump's defenders and accusers think, when the original claim was that he paid Russian whores to piss on a bed Obama had slept in. Like, that's even crazier story but somehow that has turned into Trump paying whores to piss on himself.
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
If Biden gets the nomination your hypothesis may hold water. If Warren or Bernie gets it, no way it does (in any meaningful way). No one who would consider Trump will vote for those two over this.
At that point they'd be voting for the lesser evil and it would be a toss up. Plenty of Bernie Bros voted Trump because they hated Hillary (rightfully so). Could also go the other way.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
It's weird how this is now what a lot of both Trump's defenders and accusers think, when the original claim was that he paid Russian whores to piss on a bed Obama had slept in. Like, that's even crazier story but somehow that has turned into Trump paying whores to piss on himself.
Are you serious? If that is true the media really dropped the ball letting the story evolve. I'd never support someone who pays a hooker to just pee the bed.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: monegames

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
3,038
2,419
1,055
Sondland and his flipped testimony would get shredded in cross-examination. Not unlike Cohen blowing up in the Dem's face.

So, let's get to it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,327
2,523
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
Well there it is.
If the best argument now is "he did nothing wrong, in my opinion" then this just becomes a subjective game of perspective. I'm just glad some people here had the balls to admit that he did in fact do what he is accused of.
Since the Dems are justified this time, since he is doubling down on lying, eventually more people will be convinced that he is just a bullshitter who doesn't care about anyone but himself. This will be enough to tarnish his reputation as well as leave a permanent black mark on the GOP. The recent election results may be a sign of things to come
You're living in some puritan fantasy land.

The bold has been the argument from the very beginning, the underlined was key for the Dems/media ("we can work with this"). The media has manipulated you into thinking there was a "bombshell" that could sink the president by using a common Latin phrase to sensationalize the mundane, then repeating it over and over until everyone forgets what got this all started in the first place.

Trump was always a bullshitter. Why anyone is getting hung up trying to prove that almost three years into his presidency is beyond me, as if the Access Hollywood tape wasn't enough. Conveniently, Steven Crowder brought this topic up recently, so if you've got a few minutes to kill and want to understand why a bullshitter can also be viewed as authentic/a straight talker:


You also happened to demonstrate exactly what the Dems and intelligence agencies have been trying to do to Trump: get him to trip up on his words even when he's done nothing wrong. This is the kind of crap the average person loathes. You think you're tarnishing Trump, his supporters think you're proving them right. You're fueling polarization without even realizing it.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
You're living in some puritan fantasy land.

The bold has been the argument from the very beginning, the underlined was key for the Dems/media ("we can work with this"). The media has manipulated you into thinking there was a "bombshell" that could sink the president by using a common Latin phrase to sensationalize the mundane, then repeating it over and over until everyone forgets what got this all started in the first place.

Trump was always a bullshitter. Why anyone is getting hung up trying to prove that almost three years into his presidency is beyond me, as if the Access Hollywood tape wasn't enough. Conveniently, Steven Crowder brought this topic up recently, so if you've got a few minutes to kill and want to understand why a bullshitter can also be viewed as authentic/a straight talker:


You also happened to demonstrate exactly what the Dems and intelligence agencies have been trying to do to Trump: get him to trip up on his words even when he's done nothing wrong. This is the kind of crap the average person loathes. You think you're tarnishing Trump, his supporters think you're proving them right. You're fueling polarization without even realizing it.
Joe - whether due to hubris or plain old ignorance, a huge segment of the Orange Man Bad crowd (politicians, media, social media users) still have not accepted that Trump was elected to repudiate them as much as, and in some cases more than to repudiate HRC. All the hysterical crying - fascism, constitutional crisis, lying, corruption, bigotry, division, ignorance, intolerance, etc., etc. - YES, we hear you, and we agree, and that is why we voted for Trump.
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
You're living in some puritan fantasy land.

The bold has been the argument from the very beginning, the underlined was key for the Dems/media ("we can work with this"). The media has manipulated you into thinking there was a "bombshell" that could sink the president by using a common Latin phrase to sensationalize the mundane, then repeating it over and over until everyone forgets what got this all started in the first place.

Trump was always a bullshitter. Why anyone is getting hung up trying to prove that almost three years into his presidency is beyond me, as if the Access Hollywood tape wasn't enough. Conveniently, Steven Crowder brought this topic up recently, so if you've got a few minutes to kill and want to understand why a bullshitter can also be viewed as authentic/a straight talker:


You also happened to demonstrate exactly what the Dems and intelligence agencies have been trying to do to Trump: get him to trip up on his words even when he's done nothing wrong. This is the kind of crap the average person loathes. You think you're tarnishing Trump, his supporters think you're proving them right. You're fueling polarization without even realizing it.
False.
The argument has been there was no quid pro quo. We now know he attempted just that. To the majority of people following this story, "not doing anything wrong" meant not holding aid for dirt on opponents. Sorry, that's been all but fully corroborated. But nice try moving the goal posts, as always.

Second, not all Trump supporters are as "enlightened" as you are with regards to Trump's BS. Some of them don't watch quality shows like Steven Crowder's. But certainly if you bother to bring him up in conversation and follow his work, I guess it's easier to understand the level of intellect I'm debating here.

To me the bombshell was when the whistleblower said "Trump was manipulating Ukraine by holding aid"...then Trump said it's a hoax just like the Russia thing, and I believed it at first until the facts started rolling in, and then he was caught with his pants down.

I'm glad I'm not seeing any rebuttals on his guilt. Either you've run out of good points or reality is finally sinking in.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
False.
The argument has been there was no quid pro quo. We now know he attempted just that. To the majority of people following this story, "not doing anything wrong" meant not holding aid for dirt on opponents. Sorry, that's been all but fully corroborated. But nice try moving the goal posts, as always.

Second, not all Trump supporters are as "enlightened" as you are with regards to Trump's BS. Some of them don't watch quality shows like Steven Crowder's. But certainly if you bother to bring him up in conversation and follow his work, I guess it's easier to understand the level of intellect I'm debating here.

To me the bombshell was when the whistleblower said "Trump was manipulating Ukraine by holding aid"...then Trump said it's a hoax just like the Russia thing, and I believed it at first until the facts started rolling in, and then he was caught with his pants down.

I'm glad I'm not seeing any rebuttals on his guilt. Either you've run out of good points or reality is finally sinking in.
Um, there is evidence that he held up aid while encouraging an investigation, and while simultaneously trying to get Ukraine to lean on Europe for financial help as well. There is no evidence of an actual quid pro quo. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
Um, there is evidence that he held up aid while encouraging an investigation, and while simultaneously trying to get Ukraine to lean on Europe for financial help as well. There is no evidence of an actual quid pro quo. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
Wrong again. Do you just selectively pay attention? There is multiple corroborations that aid was contingent on an investigation, not just that it just happened to be held up at the same time.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
Wrong again. Do you just selectively pay attention? There is multiple corroborations that aid was contingent on an investigation, not just that it just happened to be held up at the same time.
No buddy, you are wrong. Your selective cherry picking may tell you otherwise, but reality and well established dictionary definitions say you are 100% wrong.

quid pro quo
/ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō/
noun

  1. a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.
For there to have been a quid pro quo, you need to show an actual "favor or advantage" that was provided in return for something, actual or expected. As I said, he leaned on them for a favor. But the favor was not granted in exchange for anything.
 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
718
372
280
There is no evidence of an actual quid pro quo. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

This is a conservative source, by the way, not a fringe liberal.

“But wait,” some of the president’s congressional supporters say, “there can’t have been a quid pro quo because Zelensky says he never felt pressured and the Ukrainians did not know the aid was being withheld until August 29” (i.e., over a month after the Trump-Zelensky call).

This misstates the facts. First, the president did not just withhold aid; he refused to schedule the coveted Oval Office visit he had promised Zelensky — and the Ukrainians were quite aware of and antsy about that. Second, one must suspend disbelief to think, just because the hold on the aid was not reported (by Politico) until August 29, that the Ukrainians did not notice the expected aid hadn’t been transferred while they were being pushed on the investigations. (Ukraine’s economy is only about the size of Arkansas’s; a $400 million shortfall would not go unnoticed.) Third, Taylor says the Ukrainians undoubtedly knew about the hold on the funding by August 29; it was not lifted until nearly two weeks later. In the interim, Sondland is said to have told the Ukrainians there would be a “stalemate” if they did not accede. I wouldn’t exactly say “stalemate” is Ukrainian for “quid pro quo,” but you get the point.
More significantly, the president’s advocates misperceive the nature of the House Democrats’ inquiry. This is not a bribery prosecution in a judicial court. This is impeachment, in which there is no burden to prove a quid pro quo beyond a reasonable doubt. The House is not required to establish a felony offense, such as extortion or bribery (an element of which is a corrupt quid pro quo). In theory, House Democrats could vote an article of impeachment alleging that the president abused power by leveraging his control of foreign relations for partisan political purposes — viz., to induce the Ukrainians to investigate a potential 2020 rival. Impeachment does not require proving a penal offense up to courtroom standards. It is a political act, not a legal one: the stripping of authority by the legislature, not the establishment of a crime in court.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: Nobody_Important

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
Thankfully, a team at the DOJ already reviewed Trump's phone call and provided a determination. The folks who choose to continue ignoring that are the ones playing the "subjective game of perspective".

Or are you conflating "he did nothing wrong on the phone call" with "he did nothing wrong in all of the latest drummed-up accusations"?

Because the accusations and the original defense of "he did nothing wrong" was about the phone call. You know that. I know that. Attempting to smudge the two together is dishonest.
Hi. Just so you know, you're on my ignore list because you're incredibly annoying and usually offer nothing of substance. I figured I'd let you know so you don't aimlessly vent your emotions into a vacuum and embarass yourself. It's been like that for a month now and I figured you'd have clued in by now (I was briefly curious).
 
  • Love
Reactions: Nobody_Important

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,045
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Hi. Just so you know, you're on my ignore list because you're incredibly annoying and usually offer nothing of substance. I figured I'd let you know so you don't aimlessly vent your emotions into a vacuum and embarass yourself. It's been like that for a month now and I figured you'd have clued in by now (I was briefly curious).
Aw man, and here I thought you were arguing in good faith instead of spreading propaganda.

Oh well. Can't say I'm surprised. 🤷‍♀️
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
No buddy, you are wrong. Your selective cherry picking may tell you otherwise, but reality and well established dictionary definitions say you are 100% wrong.

quid pro quo
/ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō/
noun

  1. a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.
For there to have been a quid pro quo, you need to show an actual "favor or advantage" that was provided in return for something, actual or expected. As I said, he leaned on them for a favor. But the favor was not granted in exchange for anything.
*Facepalm*
If you're going to double down, at least do it in a way that supports your point of view. I've bolded the above and I'll attempt to break it down:

The key word there is expected.
Favor - dirt on Biden
"Something" - Ukraine aid

Trump expected a favor from Ukraine in exchange for aid that he withheld. Whether these things exchanged hands are irrelevant. The communication of the expectation is sufficient according to the very thing you just posted.

If a robber pulls a gun out at you, threatens you that if you don't give up your money he will shoot, and then last minute gets chased off by the cops, do you see it as the robber having done nothing wrong?

You're using Trump's incompetence for carrying out a crime as a defence. Like, what?
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Nobody_Important

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
515
122
1,025
Good for the author. He is still wrong. Attempted quid pro quo does not mean a quid pro quo was reached.
What relevance does this have to the question of whether the president acted unethically? Suppose you attempt to use your office to extract personal favours. Is this only unethical if you actually succeed in doing so?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nobody_Important

eclipze

Member
Mar 30, 2007
373
102
1,005
Trumps fate lies in the senate and, barring trump having sex with Mitch McConnells wife, he’s going to clear him of any potential crimes. I think the house knows this anyway.

fake edit: or maybe Mitch would be honored by that
The turtle does come off like a cuck. You’re on to something.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,045
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
The current accusation of quid pro quo must assume intent. An exchange of favors did not take place, nor did the phone call where Trump supposedly asked for said favors. Now that the phone call whistleblower hoax has fallen apart, we have the same people quickly shifting gears and insisting on what Trump really meant several months ago.

I know certain members have no trouble whatsoever claiming the ability to read minds and assume intent, but the rest of us rely on proof.

If any reciprocation could benefit Trump, that doesn't put it into quid pro quo territory. It would be just as fallacious to claim the Russigate scandal was false because it benefitted the Democrats.

Democrats are trying to argue that because Trump might benefit, the foundation of his request was a quid pro quo. Does this mean if the economy improves and Trump's property values happen to go up, he was abusing his position as president for financial gain?

That is the spurious logic we are working with.

The same logic would imply every Democrat who ever pushed Russiagate should be under similar investigation, since smearing Trump was instrumental in the results of the 2016 and the 2018 elections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
571
260
460
By all means,:

1) Running a covert operation to get dirt on a political opponent for personal gains, using foreign aid as leverage
2) List of evidence:
- Mentioning said political opponent and son directly in conversation with said foreign party. Asking explicitly that they be looked into in relation to previous instances that have already been resolved. Inappropriately asking said foreign party to work with personal lawyer having no affiliation with government.
As for 1), please cite the actual crime statute. You are making claims that aren't backed up and mixing a few disparate things together to make it sound bad. I don't know of any "covert" operation, getting dirt on political opponents is part of normal political campaigns, and foreign aid wasn't leveraged for anything at all, let alone the things you mentioned.

2)He is the president and allowed to interact with foreign nations. Asking for them to investigate corruption, which is linked to the Ukrainian president's campaign promises, is not illegal. You claim that this has been resolved which is patently false. There has been recent legal proceeding in Ukraine that have concluded there are concerns here. Legal decisions. This is far from "resolved". Asking a foreign party to work with a personal lawyer, you seemed to have conveniently left out a very important part of the conversation. He specifically asked him to first work with the AG (affiliated with our government) and then later referred to having the AG and Guliani call him. I agree it's offbase to have Guiliani involved here. But you are blatantly misrepresenting what was said.


- Withholding foreign aid that has already been approved. Providing no valid reason for doing this. Foreign party finds out about the hold on aid while personal lawyer is running covert op in Ukraine collecting data. Foreign party is caught off guard and confused as no reason was given.
The aid was held up on concerns of corruption (recall 2016 election interference, recall the corruption uncovered in Ukarine by Ukraine, recall the new Ukraine president wanting to battle corruption). You may not like this, but we cannot just give aid to corrupt governments. In the end, the aid was given, no concessiosn on Ukraine's end. You can try to make this a "thought" crime, or and "intent" to commit a crime, but a crime didn't happen.

- Personal lawyer confirms he met with Ukraine officials to explicitly ask for dirt on the Bidens
Politicians, even sitting ones looking toward re-election, perform campaign activities. It's critical that these are indeed separate from official duties. You cannot reasonably expect a politician to not campaign

- 4 people (US government) deeply involved in Ukraine relations confirm that all circumstances point towards the president attempting to execute a quid pro quo to collect information on a political opponent, acting outside of conventional governement channels. These accounts are with a person who spoke to the president directory (Sondland) and one who is also biased on his favor (previous 1 million donation). The rest are bipartisan, with one decorated military official with first hand experience of the call.
A million people can "point towards" or "think that" or "surmise that perhaps", something happened. This really is Russian Collusion 2.0. We have numerous first hand sources and evidence indicating that none of this ever happened. Facts:

1. Aid was given without any concessions. No quid pro quo. Even if there was a consideration of this, thinking about it is not a crime.
2. We have the transcripts and statements from the two on the phone call that also contradict everything you claim.
 
Last edited:

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,454
657
1,650
You do realize that attempted murder and murder are two different charges? You should be yelling "Attempted Quid Pro QUO!"
I do realize that, and I realize the intent behind both actions is the same and speaks to the mindset of the perpetrator. Failing at attempts to be corrupt is still intending and attempting to act corruptly. And the fact is, Trump corruptly offered a quid pro quo, even if it didn’t pan out like he thought it would. The fact people here are still calling it a hoax and acting like what is in plain sight isn’t what it actually is, is mind boggling. Sondland just pulled a 180 and admitted to it, why is it still a question for anyone?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,045
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
I do realize that, and I realize the intent behind both actions is the same and speaks to the mindset of the perpetrator. Failing at attempts to be corrupt is still intending and attempting to act corruptly. And the fact is, Trump corruptly offered a quid pro quo,
When specifically did this offer take place?

Since it wasn't on the phone call (which was the original accusation), I would hope there's a concrete time, place, and conversation you are referring to.

even if it didn’t pan out like he thought it would. The fact people here are still calling it a hoax and acting like what is in plain sight isn’t what it actually is, is mind boggling. Sondland just pulled a 180 and admitted to it, why is it still a question for anyone?
In order for this to matter, you must not only put your faith in Sondland but also in your own ability to assume intent.
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,482
1,112
920
I do realize that, and I realize the intent behind both actions is the same and speaks to the mindset of the perpetrator. Failing at attempts to be corrupt is still intending and attempting to act corruptly. And the fact is, Trump corruptly offered a quid pro quo, even if it didn’t pan out like he thought it would. The fact people here are still calling it a hoax and acting like what is in plain sight isn’t what it actually is, is mind boggling. Sondland just pulled a 180 and admitted to it, why is it still a question for anyone?
Bit of a difference you now have to prove he intended to do a corrupt act as opposed to actually doing a corrupt act. You say 'mind boggling' but for me it is also 'mind boggling' that anyone would believe the democratic party or their surrogates without hard proof after they accused the President of being a Russian spy for three years. You bring up Sondland but he didn't implicate Trump at all.
 
Last edited:

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,327
2,523
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
False.
The argument has been there was no quid pro quo. We now know he attempted just that. To the majority of people following this story, "not doing anything wrong" meant not holding aid for dirt on opponents. Sorry, that's been all but fully corroborated. But nice try moving the goal posts, as always.

Second, not all Trump supporters are as "enlightened" as you are with regards to Trump's BS. Some of them don't watch quality shows like Steven Crowder's. But certainly if you bother to bring him up in conversation and follow his work, I guess it's easier to understand the level of intellect I'm debating here.

To me the bombshell was when the whistleblower said "Trump was manipulating Ukraine by holding aid"...then Trump said it's a hoax just like the Russia thing, and I believed it at first until the facts started rolling in, and then he was caught with his pants down.

I'm glad I'm not seeing any rebuttals on his guilt. Either you've run out of good points or reality is finally sinking in.
I have no hope of discussing this with you when you claim Dunpachi offers nothing of substance, but since you're talking about moving goal posts how about we go back to the beginning of this thread? See the last paragraph of post #74. "Calling upon a foreign power to intervene in his election" was the allegation, straight from Nancy's mouth (WaPo Youtube link if anyone needs a reminder). Abuse of power, obstruction and everything else stems from that one allegation. If Trump wasn't interfering in the 2020 election then what was he really doing on that phone call? 🤔

Hell, let's go one step further, let's assign guilt to Trump and assume the "whistleblower" never came forward. Was Biden your preferred candidate? Did you at any point believe he was a sure bet for the 2020 nominee? Would you be comfortable with him as POTUS knowing what we know now? Hunter practically admitted he was in the wrong on ABC News. "I won't work for any foreign entities when my dad becomes president"... but it was okay when he was Vice President?
 
Last edited:

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
I do realize that, and I realize the intent behind both actions is the same and speaks to the mindset of the perpetrator. Failing at attempts to be corrupt is still intending and attempting to act corruptly. And the fact is, Trump corruptly offered a quid pro quo, even if it didn’t pan out like he thought it would. The fact people here are still calling it a hoax and acting like what is in plain sight isn’t what it actually is, is mind boggling. Sondland just pulled a 180 and admitted to it, why is it still a question for anyone?
You have to give them credit, they've been moving the goal posts for weeks now and are probably just a bit tired. My favorite is doubling down on fallacious logic like "there was no quid pro quo discussed during the call" and "but Trump said it wasn't quid pro quo so obviously we should believe him". We are at the point where the person being accused is now used as the primary source to determine his innocence.

When you've pushed a stray alley cat into a corner, it may hiss, growl and screech. The Trump reeeeeepublican weasling and contorting in this thread has been intriguing, to say the least. Sadly it's no fun to debate someone who lost the argument but stays in denial by regurgitating the same irrelevant points.

Orange man still good. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thaedolus

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,342
8,748
880

During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings sought a meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. (I filed that suit this summer with the help of the public interest law firm the Southeastern Legal Foundation.)

Just three weeks before Burisma’s overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election.

Hunter Biden’s name, in fact, was specifically invoked by the Burisma representative as a reason the State Department should help
, according to a series of email exchanges among U.S. officials trying to arrange the meeting. The subject line for the email exchanges read simply “Burisma.”

“Per our conversation, Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies requested a meeting to discuss with U/S Novelli USG remarks alleging Burisma (Ukrainian energy company) of corruption,” a Feb. 24, 2016, email between State officials read. “She noted that two high profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member).

“Tramontano would like to talk with U/S Novelli about getting a better understanding of how the U.S. came to the determination that the company is corrupt,” the email added. “According to Tramontano there is no evidence of corruption, has been no hearing or process, and evidence to the contrary has not been considered.”

At the time, Novelli was the most senior official overseeing international energy issues for State. The undersecretary position, of which there are several, is the third-highest-ranking job at State, behind the secretary and deputy secretary. And Tramontano was a lawyer working for Blue Star Strategies, a Washington firm that was hired by Burisma to help end a long-running corruption investigation against the gas firm in Ukraine.
The emails show Tramontano was scheduled to meet Novelli on March 1, 2016, and that State Department officials were scrambling to get answers ahead of time from the U.S. embassy in Kiev.

The records don’t show whether the meeting actually took place. The FOIA lawsuit is ongoing and State officials are slated to produce additional records in the months ahead.

But the records do indicate that Hunter Biden’s fellow American board member at Burisma, Devon Archer, secured a meeting on March 2, 2016 with Secretary of State John Kerry. In addition to serving on the Burisma board, Archer and Hunter Biden were partners at an American firm known as Rosemont Seneca.

“Devon Archer coming to see S today at 3pm – need someone to meet/greet him at C Street,” an email from Kerry’s office manager reads. “S” is a shorthand frequently used in State emails to describe the Secretary of State. The memos don’t state the reason for the meeting.
Why was Burisma trying to meet the State Department? hmmmm

So what is the crime that Trump committed that he should be impeached for again? Asking Ukraine to investigate why Burisma was meeting with State and why Devon Archer was meeting with John Kerry?

Speaking of Kerry

Whatever the subject of the Archer-Kerry meeting, its existence is certain to spark interest. That’s because Secretary Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz, had been a business partner with both Archer and Hunter Biden at the Rosemont Seneca investment firm in the United States.

Heinz, however, chose not to participate in the Burisma dealings. In fact, he wrote an email to his stepfather’s top aides in May 2014, pointedly distancing himself from the decision by Hunter Biden and Devon Archer to join Burisma’s board.

Heinz’s spokesman recently told The Washington Post that Heinz ended his relationship with Archer and Hunter Biden partly over the Burisma matter. “The lack of judgment in this matter was a major catalyst for Mr. Heinz ending his business relationships with Mr. Archer and Mr. Biden,” Heinz spokesman Chris Bastardi told the newspaper
This would be easier to swallow if the Dems didn't do exactly the same damn thing. They used their a DNC operative to get the Ukranian government to influence the election. But that was perfectly fine.

Keep in mind that the term "dirt" is just propaganda and politically motivated. The proper term is CRIMES. Dirt is finding out if Biden banged some hookers or was doing coke. This is not "dirt", this is possible corruption and a crime as well as abuse of power.
 

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
571
260
460
I do realize that, and I realize the intent behind both actions is the same and speaks to the mindset of the perpetrator. Failing at attempts to be corrupt is still intending and attempting to act corruptly. And the fact is, Trump corruptly offered a quid pro quo, even if it didn’t pan out like he thought it would.
You are assuming intent and guilt without evidence. Another interpretation, with evidence to support, is that Trump was wanting to investigate corruption and didn’t want to provide aid to a corrupt foreign power. The intent would be to stop corruption. It also so happens that both presidents have pledged to fight corruption. In their respective successful campaigns... almost like a common ground they could collaborate on...

The fact people here are still calling it a hoax and acting like what is in plain sight isn’t what it actually is, is mind boggling. Sondland just pulled a 180 and admitted to it, why is it still a question for anyone?

The fact you make wild assumptions of intent, ignore evidence to the contrary, and act that the fact the alleged wrongdoing didn’t happen doesn’t matter is boggling. You are literally advocating for punishment of thought crime and your evidence is assuming ones intent based on second and third hand opinions over primary evidence.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,342
8,748
880

But whatever the Biden family recollections, the Obama State Department clearly saw the Burisma Holdings investigation in the midst of the 2016 presidential election as a Joe Biden issue.

Memos newly released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Southeastern Legal Foundation on my behalf detail how State officials in June 2016 worked to prepare the new U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, to handle a question about “Burisma and Hunter Biden.”

In multiple drafts of a question-and-answer memo prepared for Yovanovitch’s Senate confirmation hearing, the department’s Ukraine experts urged the incoming ambassador to stick to a simple answer.

“Do you have any comment on Hunter Biden, the Vice President’s son, serving on the board of Burisma, a major Ukrainian Gas Company?,” the draft Q&A asked.

The recommended answer for Yovanovitch: “For questions on Hunter Biden’s role in Burisma, I would refer you to Vice President Biden’s office.”

The Q&A is consistent with other information flowing out of State. As I reported yesterday, when a Burisma representative contacted State in February 2016 to ask for the department’s help in quashing the corruption allegations, Hunter Biden’s role on the company’s board was prominently cited.

And a senior State Department official who testified recently in the impeachment proceedings reportedly told lawmakers he tried to warn the vice president’s office that Burisma posed a conflict for Joe Biden but was turned aside.
More involvment from the State Department. Why was state so involved if there was nothing there. Would be nice to get some info on it, if only someone would ask the Ukrainians for help.
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
You are assuming intent and guilt without evidence. Another interpretation, with evidence to support, is that Trump was wanting to investigate corruption and didn’t want to provide aid to a corrupt foreign power. The intent would be to stop corruption. It also so happens that both presidents have pledged to fight corruption. In their respective successful campaigns... almost like a common ground they could collaborate on...




The fact you make wild assumptions of intent, ignore evidence to the contrary, and act that the fact the alleged wrongdoing didn’t happen doesn’t matter is boggling. You are literally advocating for punishment of thought crime and your evidence is assuming ones intent based on second and third hand opinions over primary evidence.
Except that Burisma was already being investigated before the call (they re-opened certain investigations). So Trump was asking Ukraine to investigate corruption they were already investigating? He needed to withhold aid specifically to target the Bidens. Keep digging that hole my friend.