• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ukraine president says 'no blackmail' in phone call with Trump

sjmay said:
Not sure how you are reading that to be honest, if you read his entire statement, it's CLEAR that he believes there was no quid pro quo and that in actuality the hesitancy that held up the aid package, was coming from Trumps belief of corruption in Ukraine....
Click to expand...

1. I think it's fair to say -- based on what Volker wrote in his opening statement only -- that Volker didn't believe there was a quid pro quo with regard to Biden. That's different than the spin SLC put on it, which was to say that Volker definitively stated there was no quid pro quo, and Volker is an authority on the topic so no one else can be in a position to contradict him.

2. I don't know where you're getting this second part about, "it's clear that....in actuality, the hesitancy that held up the aid package was coming from Trump's belief of corruption in Ukraine.", because Volker was referencing Biden when he mentioned the "Vice President".

3. It doesn't matter because Trump, even had there not been a quid pro quo, still committed an impeachable offense simply by making the request to Ukraine that they investigate Biden. And if you don't believe the whistleblower, and you don't believe the transcript of Trump's phone call with the Ukranian President, then PLEASE watch and/or listen to Trump's public statement on the White House lawn where he makes the request to Ukraine, in public, on national television.
 
Last edited:
sjmay said:
LOL Well, if that's the statement that you think is gonna hang him....good luck to you.

No honestly, good luck. You are going to need to show that that is not normally done by any foreign leader, any place, at any time in history.

You also have to show that the aid package, would not have been sent, unless that happened....good luck there...

It's amazing the finger strength the left has when it comes to holding onto minuscule details.
Click to expand...

There's already mountains of evidence Trump made the request, I mean, he admitted he made the request on the phone call already during one of his impromptu press conferences, and there is already publicly available evidence the aid was withheld for precisely this purpose, and he can still be impeached even if the aid wasn't withheld for this purpose, because by making the request Trump was asking a foreign government to interfere in an upcoming election by digging up dirt on Trump's main political rival.
 
j brown's body said:
I think Trump has been crystal clear that there is no quid pro quo. Don't you think Trump has been crystal clear that there is no quid pro quo?
Click to expand...

It's a contradiction in terms to claim trump has ever been "crystal clear" about anything. Unless he's reading from a scripted speech, he sounds like a mentally ill person on molly.
 
Pound4abrown said:
You don't see a lot of things. Why is that our problem?
Click to expand...

Where did I say it was your problem? The above response wasn't meant for you.
Speaking about seeing things that aren't really there...:lol:
 
W_Heisenberg said:
1. I think it's fair to say -- based on what Volker wrote in his opening statement only -- that Volker didn't believe there was a quid pro quo with regard to Biden. That's different than the spin SLC put on it, which was to say that Volker definitively stated there was no quid pro quo, and Volker is an authority on the topic so no one else can be in a position to contradict him.

2. I don't know where you're getting this second part about, "it's clear that....in actuality, the hesitancy that held up the aid package was coming from Trump's belief of corruption in Ukraine.", because Volker was referencing Biden when he mentioned the "Vice President".

3. It doesn't matter because Trump, even had there not been a quid pro quo, still committed an impeachable offense simply by making the request to Ukraine that they investigate Biden. And if you don't believe the whistleblower, and you don't believe the transcript of Trump's phone call with the Ukranian President, then PLEASE watch and/or listen to Trump's public statement on the White House lawn where he makes the request to Ukraine, in public, on national television.
Click to expand...

2. It literally says it in his remakrs, "Second, in May of this year, I became concerned that a negative narrative about Ukraine,
fueled by assertions made by Ukraine’s departing Prosecutor General, was reaching the
President of the United States, and impeding our ability to support the new Ukrainian
government as robustly as I believed we should."

And he kept that theme throughout the statements...

3. What exactly was said? Find corruption?
 
lurchadams said:
It's a contradiction in terms to claim trump has ever been "crystal clear" about anything. Unless he's reading from a scripted speech, he sounds like a mentally ill person on molly.
Click to expand...

Mental illness nor Molly explains Revolutionary War airports.
 
Pound4abrown said:
If irony was a superpower, you could fly counter-clockwise around the Earth fast enough to turn back time to when Trump wasn't guilty of corruption.
Click to expand...

Try and keep up.
I was responding to a poster who was talking about the Sounland text where he wrote, “I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”
 
SLC said:
Volker told congress multiple times there was no Quid Pro Quo I think he is far far more qualified than you on the full subject matter. The reason SACK of Schiff won't release his testimony is because it would hurt the Dems cause. That is being dishonest with the American people.
Click to expand...

Precisely, and they will pay for holding it from the American public come Nov. 2020.
I wouldn't be surprised if they lose the House after their latest fiasco.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Well, look at that. Case closed. Nothing to see here folks.
Click to expand...

Tell us how Schiff will make his case against Zelensky?
Liddle lying Adam Schiff is going to call the president of Ukraine a liar?

Don't forget... the public heard the memorandum of the phone call and have seen the Sounland text.
 
lurchadams said:
That was a "CYA" text from Sondland and anyone with at least half a brain knows it.

So why block him from testifying in front of congress? Unless... the trump legal team knows he'd perjure himself.

You are adorable though.. keep up with defending the indefensible.
Click to expand...

A CYA text? Is that what Trump haters are calling it now?
Too funny.
 
roughdraft274 said:
That would be very convincing if it weren't for the fact that we have text messages (from an encrypted app, so as to try and hide these communications) that show explicitly that there was black mail, a republican senator admitted that one of the officials told him we were holding up aid in exchange for political investigations, we have a memo of a call that shows that the president wanted a "a favor though" when discussing military purchases for Ukraine that would require our aid to be sent etc. etc. etc.

The ukrainian president doesn't want to piss off trump cause he has Russians lined up on his borders and in his country in some parts. And he knows the president is incredibly spiteful and morally corrupt. So he can't call him out. It's the same reason that he had to mention to Trump that he stayed at one of his hotels. Because he knows how corrupt and absolutely unfit Trump is.
Click to expand...

Not saying I disagree with your overall conclusions because I don’t but just wanted to point out that using an encrypted app is no evidence of wanting to hide some illegal activity. Couple reasons why. First pretty much all decent messaging apps are encrypted to one degree or another. Be it IMessage, WhatsApp, signal, or line, or any of the other tons of messaging apps are all encrypted. Some more so then others.
And the second reason is that virtually everyone who does official us government business is using an encrypted app for communications. It’s pretty standard and it only makes sense.
 
Moderate Right said:
It's totally amazing how the left think they have a case when the star witness defends Trump.
Click to expand...

That's because the left has always made up their own facts.

Note how none of the anti-Trump posters answered my question in the first post about taking the vote.
That's because they know this is just another of their vapid witch-hunts at work.
 
trixare4kids said:
A CYA text? Is that what Trump haters are calling it now?
Too funny.
Click to expand...

Yah! Ha ha ha! Anyway, I just saw a news piece that Sondland is going to defy the State Dept's order not to testify to congress. Should be interesting!
 
trixare4kids said:
Ukraine president says '''no blackmail''' in phone call with Trump | Fox News

Does anyone besides me think the Democrats should get off their asses, take the VOTE or go home? Since President Zelensky said there were no bribes, blackmail or quid pro quo, kind of hard for Democrats to spin a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Click to expand...

You appear to be under the impression that the leader of a country which is almost totally dependent on the support of the President of the United States of America would come out and say


"The President of the United States of America made it very clear, without using the specific words, that unless I provided him with information which he wasn't legally entitled to ask for and which I wasn't legally permitted to give him - even if I had to make up the information he wanted - he was going to cause massive disruption to my country and refuse to support us in our struggles to remain independent from Russia."
​

and I cannot help but wonder why.
 
Cardinal said:
"The man whose back I'm holding a gun to says I'm not holding a gun to his back!"

Besides, you know who disagrees that there was no extortion?

1)The whistleblower
2)The ICIG
3)The DNI
4)Ambassador Sondland
5)Diplomat Bill Taylor
6)Senator Johnson
7)The collective common sense of planet earth
Click to expand...

Picky, picky, picky.
 
lurchadams said:
Yah! Ha ha ha! Anyway, I just saw a news piece that Sondland is going to defy the State Dept's order not to testify to congress. Should be interesting!
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's lots of news pieces out that explain exactly why the Democrats are not getting their way.
You know what Nancy needs to do in order to expect others to testify, right?
She can't continue to have her cake and eat it too...Get on or off the pot, and have the vote.
 
trixare4kids said:
I'm sure there's lots of news pieces out that explain exactly why the Democrats are not getting their way.
You know what Nancy needs to do in order to expect others to testify, right?
She can't continue to have her cake and eat it too...Get on or off the pot, and have the vote.
Click to expand...

I assume you're implying that Nancy needs to get a full house vote to start a formal impeachment inquiry. But out of 19 impeachment proceedings that have taken place in the House in U.S. history only 2 utilized a full House vote. They did this in order to give the chairs of the relevant committees subpoena power. However, Boehnor and Ryan both expanded the powers of committee chairs, and now, the relevant chairs, Intel, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, and Ways and Means, have the permanent power to issue subpoena's on their own initiative.(see page 8) A congressional subpoena is a congressional subpoena. It has all the power it needs, and doesn't get all sparkly or turn golden just because a full House vote takes place. It's just that Trump is a desperate criminal, so he needs to spit bull****, tell you it will make a difference, and slow walk everything. He would obstruct even if they voted.
 
HAL9000 said:
I assume you're implying that Nancy needs to get a full house vote to start a formal impeachment inquiry. But out of 19 impeachment proceedings that have taken place in the House in U.S. history only 2 utilized a full House vote. They did this in order to give the chairs of the relevant committees subpoena power. However, Boehnor and Ryan both expanded the powers of committee chairs, and now, the relevant chairs, Intel, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, and Ways and Means, have the permanent power to issue subpoena's on their own initiative.(see page 8) A congressional subpoena is a congressional subpoena. It has all the power it needs, and doesn't get all sparkly or turn golden just because a full House vote takes place. It's just that Trump is a desperate criminal, so he needs to spit bull****, tell you it will make a difference, and slow walk everything. He would obstruct even if they voted.
Click to expand...

No, she needs to take a formal vote to move beyond her phony impeachment inquiry.

As for the rest of the echo chamber's rant...... blah, blah, blah.
His haters have been trying to impeach him since Jan. 17, 2017.
It's getting old.
 
trixare4kids said:
No, she needs to take a formal vote to move beyond her phony impeachment inquiry.

As for the rest of the echo chamber's rant...... blah, blah, blah.
His haters have been trying to impeach him since Jan. 17, 2017.
It's getting old.
Click to expand...

She only needs a vote to pass articles of impeachment. She requires no other votes.
 
HAL9000 said:
She only needs a vote to pass articles of impeachment. She requires no other votes.
Click to expand...

So what's holding up the rodeo clown show?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You appear to be under the impression that the leader of a country which is almost totally dependent on the support of the President of the United States of America would come out and say


"The President of the United States of America made it very clear, without using the specific words, that unless I provided him with information which he wasn't legally entitled to ask for and which I wasn't legally permitted to give him - even if I had to make up the information he wanted - he was going to cause massive disruption to my country and refuse to support us in our struggles to remain independent from Russia."
​

and I cannot help but wonder why.
Click to expand...

You appear to be putting words in the mouth of the president of Ukraine.
and I cannot help but wonder why.
 
Moderate Right said:
It's totally amazing how the left think they have a case when the star witness defends Trump.
Click to expand...

It sure has been fun reading this thread to witness the "amazement". :lamo
 
trixare4kids said:
I'm sure there's lots of news pieces out that explain exactly why the Democrats are not getting their way.
You know what Nancy needs to do in order to expect others to testify, right?
She can't continue to have her cake and eat it too...Get on or off the pot, and have the vote.
Click to expand...

There is not constitutional requirement for there to be a vote for congress to do their job. Poor twump.. he feels the walls closing in.. we know now that Rudy's buddies were funnelling Russian money to GOP candidates... you think Rudy's going to go down without singing like a jailbird that Jr. and probably trump himself knew full well what was going on? I thinketh not!
 
lurchadams said:
There is not constitutional requirement for there to be a vote for congress to do their job. Poor twump.. he feels the walls closing in.. we know now that Rudy's buddies were funnelling Russian money to GOP candidates... you think Rudy's going to go down without singing like a jailbird that Jr. and probably trump himself knew full well what was going on? I thinketh not!
Click to expand...

They're going forward with the vote because there will be no formal impeachment articles drawn.
You heard it here. Earmark this post.
If I am wrong, I owe you a drink the next time you are in town.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom