I think that you responded to the wrong post since it has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, I'm just guessing that Trump would have some inclination about that. Certainly more than you.

Were you a professional cherry picker? Seriously, was that your job? That would explain a LOT.

It's funny, I read an article on this at lunch just today. Bill Taylor is the Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, and as you say, he said a quid pro quo was crazy.

Here's what you so conveniently left out. Gordon Sondland is the US Ambassador to the EU, and when he heard what Bill Taylor said, he texted Taylor and told him this:

"Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."

Now, I have never heard of either of these two men. I have no idea who they are, or who is more correct here. One guy feels there is a quid pro quo, the other says there wasn't. That tells me I have no idea what actually happened. It tells you, that Trump is guilty.

This is what happens. Conflicting accounts, followed by partisan nuts like you immediately leaping to the conclusion that serves your personal agenda, and you ignore that which doesn't serve your agenda.

Try showing a tiny speck of intellectual honesty once in awhile. You ignore everything that could offer a benign explanation, and everything that makes Trump look bad, you suck it up like a Hoover deluxe and question none of it.

Destroyed.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fmr...d-door-session

So when senate democrats used their office to ask Ukraine to investigate Manafort and Trump, what was that? Heroism?

You said that Ken Vogel said Zelensky did not know.

Rudy met with Zelensky's rep.

What did Rudy tell Zelensky's representative?

McGhan wasn't referring to the power of office to request assistance from an MLAT partner. It would be silly to say that, Oh, it's OK to investigate somebody if they are not your opponent, but if they are, then you can't touch them. That is non-sense. The request had to do with Ukraine corruption that affected and/or interfered with an election. Nobody is immune from such an investigation just because he is an opponent.

Trump certainly wasn't immune from being investigated even though he was a candidate for office and his opponents asked for help in discrediting him and finding out if he had committed crimes and interfered with an election.

They hid it in the congressional record.

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/m...estigation.pdf

WASHINGTON–U.S. Senators Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin (D-Ill.), and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)issued the following joint statement in response to President Trump’s reference to a letter they sent to the General Prosecutor of Ukraine in 2018 raising their concerns that the Trump Administration could unduly pressure Ukraine into obstructing the Mueller investigation by withholding funding:

“President Trump is desperate to divert attention from his abuse of power. We wrote to the Ukrainian prosecutor general in 2018 regarding press reports that, in order to curry favor with President Trump, Ukraine was considering not cooperating with Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in U.S. elections.

“The Ukrainians were justifiably concerned that Trump would exact revenge by blocking security assistance if they did not act in his political favor. It turns out that was truer than any of us could have imagined. Yes, we were worried that the President of the United States would abuse his office and leverage U.S. security assistance for his own personal agenda back in 2018. It looks like we were right then and we are right now.

The Senators’ letter was written in response to a New York Times report that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was considering not cooperating with the Mueller Probe out of concern that President Trump would cut off aid as punishment. The Senators’ letter in no way calls for the conditioning of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.

And then said we should discuss this offline.

As far as who they are one is a career diplomat, the other gave a Million to the Trump campaign and was made ambassador to the EU.

Bet you can figure out who's who.

And Trump is the first President to ask favors, of the kind that would make the person granting the favor, entitled to a favor in return? That doesn't happen every day in politics?

And again, when the senators claim they did nothing wrong, that's good enough for you. Because they are democrats.

In a poll this week, 40% of Republicans said they believe that Trump never asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

He just did it in front of a camera on the South Lawn of the White House.

Oh, so qualifications are important to you? Except in wondering why Hunter Biden got a huge job at a Ukranian energy concern.

No principles. Only politics.

I said that Vogel said that Zelensky did not know that aid had temporarily been put on hold until a month after the phone call. Are you implying that Rudy told the rep about the withholding of aid? If so, you might want to give Vogel your documentation so he can retract the story.

Which of the three questions are wrong?
As members of a coequal branch of government what are they prohibited by the Constitution from doing that is in that letter?

Why did Rudy meet with him?
What was said?

What has happened in Ukraine lately and why?

Putin's Puppet is making payments on his last election.

Wow. You knew the detail that they said theyd discuss offline, but you STILL left out the part that one denied there was a quid pro quo.

Sondland's nomination received bipartisan support during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 21, 2018.[12] Both Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) testified in support of Sondland.[13] Sen. Wyden suggested that Sondland’s "family history is both fascinating and instructive as to why he has the experience and understanding to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Sondland

Oh. People who stay in public service either career, are more legitimate than those who succeed in the private sector, and then enter public service. That makes all kinds of sense.

How many more of the 10,000 anti Trump articles you posted here, are missing suck vital facts? Can't help but wonder...

Trump is the executive branch. Where in the constitution does it say he can't ask a foreign government to look into what appears to any fair-minded person, as corruption?

I'm not saying what the senators did was wrong. I'm saying what they did, is a lot like what Trump did. I'm saying it was either OK for all of them, or unethical for all of them. You're saying it was acceptable for one, but not the other. And gee whiz, the one you don't exonerate, is Trump.

Sounds like a very responsible thing to do.

No one except you. That being said, let's impeach the m-fer anyway.

It was nothing like what Trump did, not to mention the antics of Rudy and Barr. Whole thing stinks like a pile of rotting fish.

Wow! A powerful statement!

"Favors" requested through MLAT's are not personal political favors. Wikipedia: "A mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) is an agreement between two or more countries for the purpose of gathering and exchanging information in an effort to enforce public or criminal laws . . . for requesting and obtaining evidence for criminal investigations and prosecutions."

Partners in MLAT are obligated to provide assistance in those specific matters. It's not a scratch my back I'll scratch yours situation. It's a treaty obligation.

Spin it however you like, he was asking for help digging up dirt on his 2020 opponent, not buying into your rational. So was his request China do the same dirty work legit too, you guys crack me up, I think some of you got hit in the head while circling the wagons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

imagine how much money hunter biden and kerry's step son will make if biden wins in 2020

MLAT'S are not spin. They are fact. I'm not selling you anything. I am stating fact. You can google it. And the US has a similar agreement with China, an MLAA (Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement).

Your framing it as "dirty work" or "dirt" is the spin here. By your spin, Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) should be retitled Mutual Dirt Assitance Treaty, and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement retitled Mutual Dirt Assistance Agreement.

These Treaties and Agreements are not for digging up dirt. They are obligatory co-operations to assist on various criminal and legal matters in which a Government or private or political entity in that country may have participated or have information on. Digging up any other "dirt" cannot be done via these treaties.

and he keeps ignoring the fact that Zelensky stated he felt no pressure as it relates to United States aid to Ukraine.

but goat strippers, an anonymous whistleblower with third hand information and a bunch or rabid "impeach the mothe*&^*&*r" democrats say he did....soooooo

Ha did you watch the video? You're going to throw the country giving you weapons to stay alive under the bus?

And the 3 democrat senators also asked Ukraine to investigate political adversaries. Those two things can both b acceptable, or they can both be unethical. If you say one is Ok and one is not, then this discussion is political rather than principled.

Ukraine was the democrats little play land for dirty dealing

Reported tody that Hunter may have pocketed multiple millions. Nothing to see there, because getting kicked out of the army for snorting cocaine, obviously prepares you to help run a Ukramian energy conglomerate. And just a coincidence that his dad was (1) VP and (2) Obama's point man on Ukraine.

What did he do wrong Jim?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what did who do wrong, hunter? he got rich
off his dads influence. and you tolerate that. amazing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What are Trump’s kids currently doing? You think Dad’s position and influence help Ivanka’s recent Chinese trademarks?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're one of the few Progressive leaning guys on this forum for whom I have some basic respect when it comes to politics. So, if you believe that the Chinese gvt. is trying to help the Trumps in any way, that is a hopeful sign that the Chinese may actually want to come to some mutually beneficial trade agreement with Trump . . .

Nah . . . I don't think Xi Jinping wants to give Trump political victories. As long as Trump is having trouble getting our government bureaucracy solidly behind his efforts, as long as the establishment powers here are against Trump, Xi would prefer to wait for Trump to be ousted in the next election or be impeached. Then trade negotiations and tariffs will go away and the previous status quo that enabled china to become an economic power at our expense--wealthy enough to sucker the needy third world to become dependent on China through his Belt and Road Initiative. And so become the dominant world power.

On the other hand, if this country and its political parties supported Trump, reassuring his re-election, then China might find it too debilitating to continue the tariff war with Trump. And some temporary kind of more equitable reciprocity might be achieved. Until the Dems got control back.

Don't know what he was saying. He was, for quite some time, asking, investigating. Here is some evidence he came up with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOVsLNmmA70

and:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuX6YQBLOa0

Did Trump threaten China to get her the trademarks? Ivanka already owned businesses making all kinds of crap. What experience did Hunter have in Ukranian energy?

I agree the Trump family should have divested all that nonsense.

OMG that’s rich, do you really think Trump even is aware those treaties exist, the man is clueless and doesn’t listen to a single advisor who might know. Even on the very and I repeat very remote possibility he was aware, it’s a hey wink, wink, nod, nod, I have a pressing investigation that really has never been resolved haha, spin away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You say here he's clueless. others here say he has the cunning of a mafia don to deliver such an ominous, veiled threat to Ukraine.

Which is it? Is he Don Corleone, or Fredo? You guys want him to be both, he can't be both.

You really with a straight face can say you are confident Trump has a wealth of political knowledge, especially when it comes to past treaties and agreements, I’d suggest you’d be lying if you tried. I never would suggest he is actually cunning enough to pull this madness together as some diabolical plot, he just flys by the seat of his pants, is raw no filter BS non stop. Why do you think the very best people he had to begin with are long gone?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You seem to be under the impression that you've said something of substance here. Your opinion about what Trump thinks or knows or is remotely aware of has no substantial importance in this matter. All you've done here is evade the fact that what Trump requested was absolutely legitimate, and replaced that legitimacy with your sarcastic and uninformed opinion. And that is all you could do, in order to maintain some fictitious level of credibility for your previous ignorant comments and opinions.

You not only proclaim that Trump is totally clueless, but must think that the Secretary of State, Trump's lawyers, the State Dept., all Trump advisors, are also clueless. It is their business to know something as basic as to what is legal to do when asking for foreign assistance on ANY matter. These treaties are not some dusty old files hidden in some remote never looked at file. They are paid attention to on a continuing basis when any political or legal matter between countries must be addressed.

When the media sources that you, or the public in general, doesn't tell you what you don't know, you inherently assume there is nothing to know. However, those who expand the variety of media sources are more likely to be informed about things than those who are stuck on their one-sided sources which would rather you didn't know everything you need to know to fully understand an issue. This issue of treaties that allow what Trump asked is probably not discussed by the sources that you get your info from because they would rather that you didn't know and so keep you stuck on the notion that it is illegal or unconstitutional to ask foreign powers to "dig up dirt" on their opponents. That is the preferred level of discussion that gives some appearance of a reason for impeachment.

However, other more honest media have informed those of us who listen to them about the treaties and a great deal of other things that cast a whole different light on the issue.

So it is not that Trump is clueless. It is that you are. Not through any fault of your own, except that your sources are not helping you out.

Your claim that Trump "doesn’t listen to a single advisor who might know" is unsubstantiated nonsense. He has always surrounded himself with "experts" even in his business ventures. He sometimes disagrees with some of them, but he hears them all out. Other sources would have helped you to know some things about Trump that you don't, but your sources would rather that you believe he is all the various boogymen that they've planted in your head.

Are you speaking about Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device