THAT'S HILARIOUS

democrats(including biden) who were fleecing ukraine through their children and who were engaged in election skulduggery wanted him out...now they want trump out for wanting it exposed...democrats are basically a hopeless criminal enterprise at this point...swamp creatures united with the media to preserve the swamp and their cozy deals....it's un-American

281 lobbyists have worked in the Trump administration, where the swamp is anything but drained. That figure is 4 times more than the Obama administration had 6 years in. And former lobbyists serving Trump often regulate industries that once employed them.

So quid pro quo is OK when the full US government (whatever that is) wants to do it, but if the chief executive of the government (who is responsible for foreign relations and represents the government in those relations) wants to do it he should be impeached?

The Ukrainian President didn't want to fire the prosecutor but was coerced or bribed into doing it by a quid pro quo by the VP who was representing the US government so it's OK?

But if a US President (who represents a government that professes to want to eliminate corruption in Ukraine and assure that such corruption doesn't interfere with future elections) supposedly gives a quid pro quo offer to help in exposing such corruption, he should be impeached?

so again you have no facts.

As I said, you have good down hill lately.

President Trump says he wants to drain the swamp, but appointed 281 lobbyists.

President Trump says he's concerned about families profiting from political connections, but his sons are running his business.

Then again...President Trump also said the Ukraine call was perfect.

thanks :hihi:

Diplomacy is always Quid pro quo
American diplomacy is done within the limits set by the Constitution
We have systems in place that ensure things are done within those limits
A shadow State Department is not part of our system, nor should it be.
Trump was told by numerous members of the Administration, that there were things he cannot do the way he wants.
Constructing a backchannel means of communication is not acceptable, to the Kremlin, MBS or Zelensky.
There is a horror show going on in this administration and it is starting to come to light.
Trump is scared.
What wacko thing will he do next to follow up on Syria?
Pull troops from Korea or Germany?

yes he sb impeached when there are NO facts to back up the claim of corruption and that the Pres. is asking the foreign govern. to look into a political rival for his own political gains (along w/other reasons).

Well I guess we are past the point of if there was a QPQ.

What did trump gain in the supposed quid pro quo?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is perfectly legitimate to ask a foreign government with which you have an applicable treaty to look into these matters, and there is, as you and others insist re Biden, no proof that Trump is doing it for political gain.

Last week at his father’s rally in Minnesota, the president’s simple son led a round of “lock him up” chants aimed squarely at Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. It was more than a little ironic given that, on the same morning, two close associates of his father’s personal lawyer were picked up at Dulles International Airport trying to get out of the country with one-way tickets to Vienna. Or the fact that his father’s last personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, is currently serving time. Or the fact that his father’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, is also in the big house.

On the one hand, it’s kind of funny that everyone around Donald Trump seems to wind up in jail while he accuses the rest of the world of being corrupt. Like it’s all just some big, strange coincidence.

On the other hand, it’s kind of terrifying that Donald Trump always projects his character problems onto his opponents. And somehow he keeps getting away with it.

The arrest of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman was just the latest case of Rudy Giuliani costing his boss even while working for him pro bono. He’s the most expensive free lawyer in America.

It’s also not helpful that Parnas and Fruman were supposed to join Giuliani in Vienna. After all, the president of the United States is desperate to convince people that he’s not a corrupt, would-be autocrat who deserves to be impeached because he’s flouting the Constitution and abusing his office by colluding with foreign governments. And yet, there’s his private attorney, running off to a secret meeting in another country with two foreign-born “business associates” who have been arrested on charges of funneling foreign money into U.S. elections. Oops.

Other charges against Parnas and Fruman—who again, it bears repeating, are “business associates” of the president’s personal lawyer—include falsifying records and making false statements.

Hours before they were arrested, they had dinner with the president’s free lawyer at the president’s hotel.

But yes, by all means, let’s lock up Joe Biden. That’s the real story here.

Keep believing

What did trump gain in the supposed quid pro quo?

He was asking for dirt on his political rival. Didn't you know that?

what did he gain?

it wasn't a tough question...well, maybe for you :hee:

He didn't gain anything bc there was no corruption and the whistle blower came forward.

Not when it involves a political rival in a QPQ when there is no evidence that the person you are asking about did anything ie Hunter.

Do you have any links to any investigations about Hunter at the time Trump was pressuring the Ukr. to investigate Hunter?

The charge that the president asked the government of Ukraine to give him personal political favors is serious. Proving it also requires overcoming presidential stonewalling, building a carefully-constructed case on the model of criminal law, and relying on dozens of Republicans to reverse positions they have already taken publicly.

Cipollone’s or Trump's letter to Congress is a game-changer precisely because it is not about the president’s conduct—which Democrats are always primed to attack and which Republicans are forever willing to excuse. It sweeps away the clutter of Trump’s outsized personality to clarify the constitutional stakes. The letter is not a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional opportunity.

On the basis of Cipollone’s letter alone, the House could immediately debate articles of impeachment rooted in abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. That would clarify the question for Congressional Republicans, which is not whether they are willing to apologize ad infinitum for President Trump personally—they are—but rather whether they are willing to go on record as foregoing their power of oversight of future Democratic administrations. Democrats will eventually occupy the White House and Republicans will eventually control the Congress. Whether that happens in 2021 or beyond is not the point. The survival of congressional oversight is.

The stakes are no less than that. The important fact about the Cipollone letter is not that it concocts legal grounds for resisting the House inquiry but rather that it reserves for presidents the right to judge whether impeachment proceedings are legitimate. Is there a circumstance in which a future president would acknowledge that they are?

That those in power will someday find themselves in opposition—and consequently should make decisions on the integrity of institutions rather than the behavior of individuals—is both one of the most important, and one of the most easily forsaken, tenets of constitutionalism.

Democrats forgot that principle with respect to President Obama’s assertions of unilateral executive authority over domestic issues such as health care and immigration. Yet some of the president’s most shameless apologists have retained a residue of institutional concern. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for example, has defended the legislative filibuster on the grounds that Democrats are using it today, but Republicans may need it tomorrow.

A charge of obstruction of Congress would compel senators like McConnell to weigh the same considerations with respect to Congressional oversight. Is protecting this president today—an individual whose four-year term is a fraction of the Constitution’s centuries—more important than preserving Congressional power for all time? Could, for example, the Benghazi investigation have occurred at all if President Obama had been able to withhold the testimony of Senate-confirmed officials or documentary evidence on the claim that the process was partisan?

That presidents and legislators—especially senators—are chosen on different electoral clocks helps force these considerations. A senator elected alongside President Trump in 2020 will serve two years beyond his term and consequently should consider constitutional issues on a time horizon that exceeds one administration.

Oversight of the administration’s antics in Ukraine can continue, of course. But the obstruction case is ready for trial. The evidence is indisputable, and indisputably clarifying.

What is on trial is not the transient fabulism of Donald Trump but rather the enduring architecture of the Constitution.

Remember which side of this you fell on when the next administration comes along and claims that their powers are unlimited and pushes it further.

thank you

the fact that you think there is nothing to biden's kid being on that board is absolutely hilarious

Lots of blah blah with no substance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You obviously have not read the letter and spout off as usual

So show may the links I have requested.

The fact that you think there can't be a QPQ if Trump ended up not getting anything is absolutely hilarious.

There was no quo so how could there be a quid pro quo and you completely mischaracterize what he was asking for
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just google hunter Biden and read about his life and times. Good grief
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Trump team asks us to believe that the Trump administration’s concern was with corruption – specifically involving Joe Biden’ son, Hunter.
Is there any other example of this administration expressing dissatisfaction with corruption?

Where was concern about corruption in the Philippines?
In Egypt?
In Turkey?
In Russia?
In Saudi Arabia?

Trump has gone out of his way to excuse corruption – and worse – on the part of all of those nations.

Trump praised the Philippines’ Duterte for his war on drugs, though that war has included the extra-judicial killings of thousands. Trump Tower Philippines is the “definitive landmark” of Manila, the capital city.

He lauded Egypt’s al-Sisi (president till 2034), overlooking widely-reported human rights abuses.
He suggested that we lacked moral standing to criticize Turkish president Erdogan’s handling of a coup attempt. “When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don’t think we are a very good messenger.” In December 2015, amidst a heated presidential primary, Trump said in a radio interview he had “a little conflict of interest” in Turkey. He was referring to Trump Towers Istanbul, a pair of Trump-licensed conjoined towers that received a warm welcome from Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan in 2012.

Challenged to justify his kind words for Vladimir Putin, whom the interviewer described as “a killer,” Trump was phlegmatic: “There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?” The Russian government granted Trump six trademarks in 2016. Four of the Russian trademarks were approved for renewal on Nov. 8, 2016, the day after Trump’s election, including a trademark for Trump Tower.

When it became undeniable that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman had ordered Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi to be chopped up into small pieces, President Trump noted that the Saudis have promised to buy a lot of American military equipment.
“Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million,” Trump said at a 2016 campaign rally, “Am I supposed to dislike them?”

I'm not mischaracterizing anything. He shouldn't have asked the Ukr to look into the son of a political rival.

If you want to hang your hat on the fact the UKr couldn't look into Hunter's corruption bc there was no corruption that is on you.

I wonder how it will all turn out with all of these alleged misdeeds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I frankly don't understand why we try to make our case on this board, they will NEVER admit that Trump has obstructed justice, or concede that he used tax payer approved military aid to extort a personal favor to get dirt on his perceived main political opponent in 2020, or that he continues to abuse his power and make moves to insure the family profits at our tax payer expense He is the most corrupt president of our lifetime, BUT if you hate and absolutely despise the left, this is what you will get on every single solitary thread you start, these guys are just spouting the party line. The means justify the ends in order to hold on to the senate and presidency, it's as predictable as SD about to chime in; The Best President of our lifetime.

I was thinking the same thing......:uhuh:

I think it's because you crave attention.....

You guys are hypocrites, you claim the evil dems just hate Trump so badly they will do anything to get him out of office, all the while ignoring the corruption in plain sight. Your responses are just a reflection of your hatred of the evil democrats, can't be much clearer. I'm an independent and have probably voted republican more than democratic, but I see this CLOWN for what he is and if it goes unchecked, it sets a very low bar for what is acceptable for our president.