Quid pro quo

  
Via:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  42 comments

Quid pro quo
Just a few years ago, they would have thought it insane if someone had handed them a time machine and told them that in 2019 they’d be defending the abuse of a small country by a small man. Yet here we are.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



I like articles or op-eds that get right to the point and make their case very clearly.  Mona Charen does it well in this column. Mona Charen is a long time conservative columnist although I expect that Trump supporters will call her a RINO. 
I bolded various sentences in the column for emphasis.    JR


During the last impeachment, the Latin expression coitus interruptus got a workout. This time, it’s quid pro quo. Republicans lashed themselves to this mast when the White House’s own rough transcript of the Donald Trump/ Volodymyr Zelensky call was disclosed. That document, so damaging that one might think its release was the work of Trump’s opponents rather than Trump himself, left no doubt that the president had strong-armed a besieged ally for political dirt.



Enter the QPQ squad. Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania allowed that the conversation was “inappropriate” but “reveals no quid pro quo.” Sen. David Perdue of Georgia said that the media had “talked about eight quid pro quos ... I can’t find one.” Nor could Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa. “I didn’t find it (the call) concerning,” he told Politico. “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.” Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., tweeted repeatedly about the lack of QPQ, while Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., offered that “there’s nothing there.” But the most embarrassing declaration award must go to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who told National Review last week that “What would’ve been wrong is if the president had suggested to the Ukrainian government that if you don’t do what I want you to do regarding the Bidens, we’re not going to give you the aid. That was the accusation; that did not remotely happen.”



Yeah, it did.

The Republican reliance on “no QPQ” was odd from the beginning. The president’s own words left no doubt. Zelensky asked for military aid.

Trump admonished Zelensky that the U.S. had been very generous to Ukraine but that there hadn’t always been reciprocity. He then said he needed a “favor” and launched into the Democratic server garbage that he’d picked up from Reddit or Alex Jones or something, followed by demands that Ukraine investigate the Bidens. You want something from me for your country? You’ve gotta give me what I ask for my personal benefit.

The “something,” by the way, was legally appropriated by Congress.

The president cannot lawfully withhold that something for any but statutorily listed reasons.

The lone Republican senator who seems to have remembered how the Constitution works is Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski.


Most Republicans, far from guarding institutional prerogatives or constitutional principles, have become wind-up toys. When Mick Mulvaney gave a press conference to announce that, whaddya know, the very best place to hold the G-7 meeting was Trump’s Doral resort in Miami, and detoured to boast that of course there was a QPQ — “get over it” — Republicans spoke only off the record. “Totally inexplicable,” a nameless lawmaker told The Washington Post. Here were Mulvaney’s actual words: “Did (Trump) also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about that. But that’s it, and that’s why we held up the money.” He later tried to tell Fox’s Chris Wallace that he hadn’t said that; that it was a media misrepresentation. (The DNC server “corruption” is also a fantasy, though that’s another story.)



On a daily basis, evidence mounts of the QPQ (not that more was needed). Trump appointee Kurt Volker texted a Ukrainian official: “Heard from White House-assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate/’get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.” The Ukrainians were keen for a White House meeting.






William Taylor, a lifelong public servant (West Point, Vietnam Bronze Star, NATO, U.S. Department of State) testified under oath that military assistance to Ukraine, which is in a shooting war with Russia, was withheld on the president’s orders. Trump demanded that Zelensky make a public announcement of an official Ukrainian investigation into the 2016 election and the Bidens. It was to be on CNN. Gordon Sondland, Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, told Taylor that he had been wrong to tell the Ukrainians that only a White House meeting was linked to the announcement of a formal investigation. In fact, “’everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance.” A parade of distinguished witnesses has echoed this story.

Some are career public servants. Some are leading Republicans and Trump appointees. Former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, though straining to help Trump’s cause, admitted that he was asked to phone shadow Secretary of State Rudy Giuliani about Ukraine.



Republicans used to speak movingly about the importance of liberty. They said they stood against tyranny in all its forms. Just a few years ago, they would have thought it insane if someone had handed them a time machine and told them that in 2019 they’d be defending the abuse of a small country by a small man. Yet here we are.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

I saw a comment on tv today to the effect that there have been no leaks from the impeachment hearings that are favorable for President* Trump. 

That is because all the testimony has been bad for him. 

But its all a "frame-up" ?  Sure. jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago

No

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MUVA @1.1    4 weeks ago

You are agreeing that it isn't a frame up then?  Careful, they might repossess your Trumpy Bear for that.

 
 
 
JBB
2  JBB    4 weeks ago

Trump Is TOAST...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  JBB @2    4 weeks ago

Trump Is TOAST...

Hopefully. 

Democrat hesitancy is only surpassed by Republican desperation.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @2    4 weeks ago

Mmmm . . . I love toast. jrSmiley_101_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
2.2.1  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @2.2    4 weeks ago

We should break TOAST together. Trump is TOAST!

If you do not know Mona Charen, the author of this article, she is an arch conservative who was a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and a longtime conservative editorial writer for the very conservative Dallas Morning News.

She is not even close to being liberal. She would be aghast at the suggestion. Which is a clue that even conservative stalwarts are recognizing that Trump is a loose cannon. A man wholly and completely unfit to ever be President of the United States of America...

 
 
 
WallyW
2.2.2  WallyW  replied to  JBB @2.2.1    4 weeks ago

Let the people decide at the next election, which will happen anyway,

since there is no chance in hell of Trumps impeachment and removal.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  WallyW @2.2.2    4 weeks ago
Let the people decide at the next election, which will happen anyway, since there is no chance in hell of Trumps impeachment and removal.

The impeachment process is much like a grand jury. We shall see if they build a strong enough case, they are certainly getting a lot of testimony we have yet to hear the details of. Congress is unlikely to impeach if they don't have a solid case. If they do vote to impeach, then Pelosi already knows it will pass because she's far too savvy to call for a vote without being damn sure she has enough to pass it.

So once all the investigation is complete and it goes to a vote, Trump will be impeached and it will stain his short political record no matter what happens after. If he is impeached then it goes to court aka the Senate where they try the case presented by the House, and that's when we'll all get a front row seat to all the details.

Many believe that the Senate is so partisan, no matter what criminal conduct the congress reveals, they won't vote for removal. They will fulfill Trumps insult to his own supporters when he called them lawless morons, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s, like, incredible”.

It is "incredible" but that should be seen as a warning, not a compliment.

Incredible: adjective - impossible to believe. difficult to believe; extraordinary.

"A man was found with a bloody knife still stabbing the body of his deceased ex-wife, had a diary in his car that described his plan to surprise and murder his ex-wife, and had recently taken out a multi-million dollar life insurance policy on his ex-wife, but the man is a popular reality TV show host and the grand jury was made up entirely of his fans so they chose not to indict him of any crime. It's, like, incredible.".

 
 
 
JBB
2.2.4  JBB  replied to  WallyW @2.2.2    4 weeks ago

The US Constitution gives the US Congress oversight authority OVER the Executive Branch. So, No! #WRONGO! Try Again...

 
 
 
MUVA
3  MUVA    4 weeks ago

No

 
 
 
JBB
3.1  JBB  replied to  MUVA @3    4 weeks ago

[Removed][.]

 
 
 
Tacos!
4  Tacos!    4 weeks ago

Calling it a quid pro quo doesn't make it wrong. The core of our foreign policy for 75 years has been based on quid pro quo. We send money, troops, and advisors all over the world and we always expect something in return. It's never pure altruism. We expect changes in policy and specific actions to be taken. What we expect can range from small favors to sacrifice in war.

"Quid pro quo" in American foreign relations is well characterized by a couple other latin phrases: status quo and modus operandi.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @4    4 weeks ago

MO is a method of operation.  QPQ is one hand washing the other or not giving unless you get.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1    4 weeks ago
MO is a method of operation.

Yes. Exactly.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1    4 weeks ago

Tacos thinks it is ok to demand that a country you are sending aid to investigate your election opponent.  It is an absurd position. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    4 weeks ago
Tacos thinks it is ok to demand that a country you are sending aid to investigate your election opponent.  It is an absurd position. 

John thinks that if the Vice President is involved in corruption he should be allowed to get away with it. All he has to do is say he's running for president and no one will be allowed to investigate his behavior as a public servant.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    4 weeks ago

Diplomacy is apparently a lost art form.

The WH should never be involved in the ticky tacky exchange of suggestions between Embassy underlings and their counterparts in the host nation.

Every participant needs plausible deniability.

It has been that way for hundreds of years.

 
 
 
Suz
4.2  Suz  replied to  Tacos! @4    4 weeks ago

Tacos, forgive me.  I'm curious to know why you have a collapsed thread button under your comment. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Suz @4.2    4 weeks ago
I'm curious to know why you have a collapsed thread button under your comment. 

You can collapse or uncollapse the threads by clicking on the minus or plus to see the comments there. If yours is collapsed, I can only guess that you accidentally clicked the minus button. 

 
 
 
Suz
4.2.2  Suz  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

Now I get it.  Thanks!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4    4 weeks ago

Are you starting this nonsense again? 

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/48497/trump-lackey-mulvaneys-story-on-ukraine-aid-holdup-given-four-pinocchios-by-top-rated-fact-checker

Read that article. It goes into great detail as to why you are wrong. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3    4 weeks ago
Are you starting this nonsense again? 

I could say that about every thing you seed, but I have manners.

It goes into great detail as to why you are wrong.

No, it doesn't.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4    4 weeks ago

Joe Biden and Donald Trump are competing for THE SAME JOB. The same exact job.  Biden is , beyond a shadow of a doubt, an election rival of Trumps. 

Trump CANNOT ask a foreign country to investigate him (Biden) and produce damaging information about Biden for Trump.  As Dulay notes on another article it doesnt even matter if there was a "quid pro quo" . The ask for negative information about an election rival is illegal in itself. 

But everyone wants a quid pro quo so that is where the attention is going. 

Please stop saying the quid pro quo request is fine.  Its not.  Trump CANNOT ask Ukraine for negative information about Biden.  Period. 

If he thought Biden did something wrong he could have referred the matter to his Department of Justice and the FBI. 

Trump wanted to be able to go on tv and say "Biden is so dirty Ukraine is investigating him". 

That is all this is about. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.4.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.4    4 weeks ago
Joe Biden and Donald Trump are competing for THE SAME JOB. The same exact job.  Biden is , beyond a shadow of a doubt, and election rival of trumps.

And each is now on record saying the other should be investigated and punished for wrongdoing.

The ask for negative information about an election rival is illegal in itself. 

Why does it matter if the information is negative, so long as it's true?

If he thought Biden did something wrong he could have referred the matter to his Department of Justice and the FBI.

Possibly he could have, yes. I do think that those entities should be involved, for sure.

However, there is also a diplomatic component because we are talking about the former Vice President's involvement in the economics and politics of a foreign government. That necessitates a negotiation with the government of that country to facilitate the investigation - unless you want to just spy on them. The president could take that task on himself or ask the Secretary of State to handle it.

Either way, it's coming from the president. If he thinks there was wrongdoing, he should be allowed to pursue it. If they were conspiring to manufacture or dishonestly manipulate information, that would be a problem, but pursuing the truth should be ok.

Please stop saying the quid pro quo request is fine.

Please stop telling me to stop expressing my opinion. I have a right to my point of view just as you do.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.4.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4.4.1    4 weeks ago

Your opinion is out of alignment with the facts and the law, but I suppose as a matter of promoting "everyone getting along" on an internet forum you have a right to your opinion. 

 
 
 
bugsy
4.4.3  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.4.2    4 weeks ago
[delete]
 
 
 
Dulay
4.4.4  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.4.1    4 weeks ago
And each is now on record saying the other should be investigated and punished for wrongdoing.

Yet Trump's wrongdoing is already pretty much out in the open. 

Why does it matter if the information is negative, so long as it's true?

Trump et al insist that Ukraine is steeped in corruption yet you'd count on them to give him true information. Hilarious. 

Possibly he could have, yes. I do think that those entities should be involved, for sure.

Yet Trump has yet read them in. 

However, there is also a diplomatic component because we are talking about the former Vice President's involvement in the economics and politics of a foreign government. That necessitates a negotiation with the government of that country to facilitate the investigation - unless you want to just spy on them.

Actually, by law, it necessitates that the US file a formal request for legal assistance in a criminal matter. 

https://congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

The president could take that task on himself or ask the Secretary of State to handle it.

As Taylor said in his opening statement, the DOJ would be the proper agent through which such a request would be made. NO such request is forthcoming. 

Either way, it's coming from the president. If he thinks there was wrongdoing, he should be allowed to pursue it. If they were conspiring to manufacture or dishonestly manipulate information, that would be a problem, but pursuing the truth should be ok.

Claiming that this has anything to do with Trump pursuing the truth is obtuse. 

 
 
 
JBB
4.5  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @4    4 weeks ago

Do you also believe that abuse of power is not a crime? Hint: It Is.

You need to understand that regarding Trump it is no longer about one instance or one crime. Nope, it is now about a preponderance of evidence from multiple valid, reliable and credible witnesses about a whole slew of high crimes committed by Trump and those around him. Trump Is TOAST...

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.5.1  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @4.5    4 weeks ago
abuse of power

All presidents are accused by somebody of abusing their power on a daily basis.

 
 
 
JBB
4.5.2  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @4.5.1    4 weeks ago

No, never ever has any President ever been caught illegally extorting a foreign governments to illegally interfere in our elections before now...

False equivalencies are FALSE on their faces!

Do not ever contend that I would ever excuse a Democratic Presidential for doing what Trump is coldass busted doing. It is inexcusable and was historically never ever done. Period!

What Trump has been caught doing, again, is the worst sort of high crime our founders ever imagined and exactly why there is an impeachment clause in the US Constitution! So, Trump must be impeached, convicted and removed from office imminently! Full Stop.

 
 
 
JBB
4.5.3  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @4.5.1    4 weeks ago

Even if that olde, "Everybody Does It", dodge was valid or true, and in this particular case it most definitely is not, that kind of lameass excuse was a joke in grade school. Kids may try to pull that shit but most adults will never buy that crapola. So go and try selling that manure to a tourist. We are not all suckers. Only Trump fans and Putin's goddamn Russian trolls are in the market for that kind of Pure D 100% Guaranteed USDA Grade A Certified Bullshit...

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.5.4  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @4.5.2    4 weeks ago
never ever has any President ever been caught illegally extorting a foreign governments to illegally interfere in our elections before now

And that still hasn't happened now. Trump did not ask Ukraine to do anything related to our election. He asked for information about the behavior of the Vice President. There's no reason he shouldn't have that information.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.5.5  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @4.5.3    4 weeks ago
Even if that olde, "Everybody Does It", dodge was valid or true

That's not what I said. I said all presidents are accused of abusing their power but that the mere fact of an accusation does not make it true.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @4    4 weeks ago

Are you seriously equating an investigation that is meant to benefit Trump personally with policies that benefit the US as a whole?

Come on, Tacos.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.6.1  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.6    4 weeks ago

I agree that it's potentially a problem, but I believe the full truth of it remains to be seen. I have no doubt that Trump is interested in this because he wants to be reelected. However, if the former Vice President was guilty of corruption on the job, the American people have a right to know it.

 
 
 
Suz
5  Suz    4 weeks ago

John, I'm here on your thread to ask questions.  I am not here to pick a fight.  In fact, if someone gets upset with me and begins to tell me how unimportant I am, I don't think I can go through that again.  So, here it goes.

Can someone tell me if Elizabeth Warren has ever commented about the handling of Benghazi.  What would she have done differently.

With or without Republicans, Benghazi still breaks my heart and that's why I ask. 

Thank you, all. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Suz @5    4 weeks ago
Can someone tell me if Elizabeth Warren has ever commented about the handling of Benghazi. 

I honestly dont know what Warren thinks of Benghazi. 

The US Congress investigated Benghazi 8 times. No personal wrongdoing was found on the part of Clinton or Obama. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2  Split Personality  replied to  Suz @5    4 weeks ago

She hasn't said much at all.  She was given a pretty hard time by Trey Gowdy when she was fighting to get the Consumer Protection Bureau off the ground.

When the 6th or 7th Benghazi investigation was announced by John Boehner this is what she had to say.

Earlier this week, Speaker John Boehner announced the formation of a new select committee to investigate Benghazi led by Rep. Trey Gowdy. All three of my brothers served in the military, and I know firsthand how much Americans serving abroad — and their families — sacrifice. What happened in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012 was a tragedy. Four Americans died putting themselves in harm’s way in service to peace, diplomacy, and their country. I look at what happened in Benghazi with sadness, with seriousness, and as yet another call to honor the men and women who keep us safe.

Then she went off on her low opinion of Trey Gowdy.

https://elizabethforma.com/benghazi/

That's about all I've ever seen or could find on Warren/Benghazi Suz.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6  Nerm_L    4 weeks ago

Joe Biden's threat to withhold a $1 billion loan to Ukraine if Prosecutor Shokin wasn't fired is a quid pro quo demand.  And it is unclear if Biden's quid pro quo demand fell under statutorily listed reasons to lawfully withhold the $1 billion loan to Ukraine.  Biden's defense is that he was following orders and that he, his family, or his associates did not benefit from that quid pro quo.  But circumstances really do suggest the possibility that Hunter Biden did benefit from Joe Biden's quid pro quo demand.  That may well be an unintended consequence of circumstances but that cannot simply be assumed without a formal investigation.

The accusation against Donald Trump is that he made a quid pro quo demand (just as did Biden) but for his personal benefit.  The problem confronting Democrats is the necessity to prove there was a quid pro quo demand.  What has been revealed so far is that official government channels were not used to make any quid pro quo demands (as was the case with Joe Biden).  In fact, the common complaint being made by witnesses has been that official channels were circumvented by back channel communication with the Ukrainian government.  That really does weaken the case for alleging abuse of power by Trump.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @6    4 weeks ago

Please tell me why, if Joe Biden did something wrong , the US Senate, which has been controlled by the Republicans since 2014 , has not had an investigation about it? 

Why didnt Trump have Barr or the FBI Director Wray investigate Biden?  Why ask Ukraine?  Do you think it could be because he had something to hold over Ukraine? The aid? 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    4 weeks ago
Please tell me why, if Joe Biden did something wrong , the US Senate, which has been controlled by the Republicans since 2014 , has not had an investigation about it? 

Why didn't Democrats raise the same concerns over Biden's connections with Ukraine as they have with Trump?

Why didnt Trump have Barr or the FBI Director Wray investigate Biden?  Why ask Ukraine?  Do you think it could be because he had something to hold over Ukraine? The aid? 

AG Barr has been conducting an investigation and has appointed a special counsel to perform an in-depth criminal investigation.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Freedom Warrior
MUVA


31 visitors