Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
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.
|
This is what was said when Mulvaney admitted to the ask.
Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well."
Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration."
Claim that only direct evidence counts and ignore as much other evidence as you want, if this was in a court of law with proper discovery, witnesses and documents, Floridaman would be convicted. If he was not president the FBI would have been at the door at 2am and taken the evidence. Cases are concluded with convictions all the time based on indirect, demonstrative and other types of evidence. You don't honestly think that Teflon Don II didn't learn anything from Roy Cohn. Keeping the witnesses with direct evidence out will only work if the crime is well hidden. The corrupt behavior affected several branches of the administration, ‘Everyone was in the loop’.
Obstructing congress is only temporary, the truth always finds the light of day and when it does the enablers will be done.
Perhaps they will wish they had chosen to take the risk of having their heads on a pike.