Watch the Trump Ukraine scandal come back to roost

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And you know that the full US govern. wanted the pros. gone.

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?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?
Show me where Trump or his administration voiced concerns about corruption in Ukraine and the date

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?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

what did he gain?

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

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He didn't gain anything

thank you

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

yes he sb impeached when there are NO facts to back up the claim of corruption

There are ongoing investigations by the DOJ, the IG, By Durham and one other can't remember his name, on such corruption. Apparently they are aware of some "facts" that you're not.

The corrupt seed which led to these investigations and from which blossomed unproven charges of obstruction by Trump was the fake collusion narrative which was not founded on facts or evidence.

So, apparently, facts or evidence are not necessary to start investigations.

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.

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So show may the links I have

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

The Mueller investigation into Trump supposedly conspiratorially colluding with Russia has established that evidence is not necessary to start an investigation.

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

Don't need links in order to be able to think. It is very fishy and stinks of corruption that Hunter got an exceedingly high paying job for which he had no specifically applicable qualifications, and is evident that he got the gig because he is the son of the VP, and that the VP got the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter's employer fired.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Don't need links in order to be able to think. It is very fishy and stinks of corruption that Hunter got an exceedingly high paying job for which he had no specifically applicable qualifications, and is evident that he got the gig because he is the son of the VP, and that the VP got the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter's employer fired.

How can something "stink of corruption" when there's still zero evidence of a corrupt act? Getting a good job because of connections isn't exactly corrupt, it's pretty normal.

Burisma wasn't under investigation at the time Biden, a bipartisan Congress and the IMF wanted the prosecutor fired either.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Getting a good job because of connections isn't exactly corrupt, it's pretty normal.

You can’t be this dumb
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Don't need links in order to be able to think. It is very fishy and stinks of corruption that Hunter got an exceedingly high paying job for which he had no specifically applicable qualifications, and is evident that he got the gig because he is the son of the VP, and that the VP got the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter's employer fired.

Yes, I didn't think you would provide any links. So where exactly is the corruption? it might not be right but it's certainly not corrupt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yes, I didn't think you would provide any links. So where exactly is the corruption? it might not be right but it's certainly not corrupt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought investigations were needed to find alleged corruption or crime or reasons for impeachment. You know, like what they've been doing to Trump from day one and before.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

it might not be right but it's certainly not corrupt.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?
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?

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?”