Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
When did Floridaman mention corruption at all?
When Rudy did all his admitting on TV, he rubbed out most of the lawyer client privilege
Presidential privilege is not all encompassing in scope and the administration has unprecedentedly blocked everything that congress asked for.
As far as Zelensky not being able to say publicly that he was pressured, there is evidence that Ukraine knew the aid was being withheld, arrangements were made to announce an investigation and the whole drug deal blew up when the whistleblower information was coming out and there was no way around it.
No different than any other extortion case, it's a crime whether you were successful or not.
The other question there is what happened to the criminal referral that came out of the whistleblower report, just how did that disappear?
I answered your true false test. You were not able or not willing to answer mine. That is not unusual for you. You routinely doge, avoid, distract, as in here throwing back more questions to answer than answering the true/false quiz. It comes to a point where there is no purpose in either answering your questions nor expecting an answer from you.
And here's Mulvaney........admitting to a quid pro quo or are you claiming the equal to "did not have sexual relations with that woman"?
|
It was general response to the give and take involved in foreign policy. I believe that even you had said the same in some previous thread. His answer was not specifically regarding a quid pro quo for information that would benefit the next election.
The phone call that sparked the controversy did not ask for a quid pro quo. The facts are that there was no quid pro quo asked for in the phone call. There was no quid pro quo demanded or received when the money was given. Those are the facts.
As well as the fact that Mulvaney specifically said there was no quid pro quo other than some assurances that corruption would be looked into as Trump had every legal right, and an actual duty, to inquire about.
Those are the discernable facts.
What Mulvaney said is not so much the question as is what Trump said. What is undeniable, manifest, discernable fact, is that Trump has not been shown to ask Zelensky for something, much worse, something illegal, in EXCHANGE for the aid. Zelensky concurred that there was no such quid pro quo. It is conjectured or implied that he did. Those are the facts.
But what is pure conjecture is that what he asked for or intended was dirt to influence the next election. That is pure, unknowable, speculation. It may comfort you to indulge it, but speculation is not grist for impeachment nor for any criminal prosecution.