• 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!

Are republicans making a valid point here?

Justin Jared said:
"GOP Rep. : 'If there was a quid pro quo, it certainly wasn't a very effective one'"

Link: GOP Rep. : 'If there was a quid pro quo, it certainly wasn't a very effective one' - AOL News

According to the article listed, republicans are being accused of claiming the president shouldn't be in trouble for his Ukraine allegations if ultimately -- the country of Ukraine received the aid that was withheld from them, didn't know it was being withheld, and no investigation into the Bidens or smear campaign against them ever happened by Ukraine. Do you agree with those allegations? Republican rebuttals to the Trump-Ukraine calls for his impeachment by primarily democrats, and accusations of committing a "quip-pro-quo" offense? Not agree? Disagree? Why or Why not?
Click to expand...

Read about Ambassador Taylor's recent testimony before Congress. Ukraine was aware of the military aid being withheld, as this article discusses:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...6fb850-f436-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html

The facts are the facts. There is no confusion regarding the circumstances surrounding the quid pro quo.

quid pro quo is a misleading term. It was actually more like extortion.
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
You can't just read the call transcript to understand what was going on. Simply looking at the raw data and deciding for yourself how things work is a plan destined for failure. You really need to focus more on what Adam Schiff, Rachael Maddow and Eric Swallwell say. Let them do all your thinking and analysis for you and your life will be much better....especially after the Democrats take over.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean the edited transcript? So no we can't just take trump at his word, especially since we know his word is worthless. We have no raw data, so much for that. So it looks like you acknowledge that the Dems are going to take over, whatever that means, seens like some are spending way too much time absorbing nonsense and are now calling anything, even an election trump loses as a call to war.
Personally I am beging to think many have lost all ability at rational thought.
Putin is laughing his ass off, his mission in close to being accomplished.
 
Justin Jared said:
"GOP Rep. : 'If there was a quid pro quo, it certainly wasn't a very effective one'"

Link: GOP Rep. : 'If there was a quid pro quo, it certainly wasn't a very effective one' - AOL News

According to the article listed, republicans are being accused of claiming the president shouldn't be in trouble for his Ukraine allegations if ultimately -- the country of Ukraine received the aid that was withheld from them, didn't know it was being withheld, and no investigation into the Bidens or smear campaign against them ever happened by Ukraine. Do you agree with those allegations? Republican rebuttals to the Trump-Ukraine calls for his impeachment by primarily democrats, and accusations of committing a "quip-pro-quo" offense? Not agree? Disagree? Why or Why not?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter because there was no quid pro quo.
 
Drawdown said:
He didn't discuss publicizing anything as far as looking into it.
Click to expand...

Not in the released notes on the phonecall, you are correct.

In the text messages however:

That Trump wanted an investigation was a message that seemed to register with the Ukrainian administration.
Volker and the Ukrainian adviser, Andrey Yermak, continued to text after the call about Zelensky making a public statement ahead of a meeting between the two leaders.
"I think potus really wants the deliverable," US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland texted Volker on August 9, as the two were talking about possible dates for a meeting.
"Once we have a date, will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the US-UKRAINE relationship, including among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations," Yermak wrote to Volker the following day.[/QUOTE
Click to expand...
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Only because he wasn't competent enough to make it happen. The failed attempt is still just as illegal. This isn't that hard.
Click to expand...

There was no attempt, either.
 
Mycroft said:
There was no attempt, either.
Click to expand...

You may want to get on board with the new defense. Even Republicans are now admitting there was a quid pro quo, they are just claiming that it isn't illegal unless there is "corrupt intent", to borrow a phrase from Ted Cruz.
 
Mycroft said:
It doesn't matter because there was no quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

A quid quo pro was sought, but not carried out. All that's necessary is the corruptly seeking something of value, in exchange for an official act. Of course Trump claimed no quid pro quo, but his insistence that Zelensky go to a microphone and make a public announcement shows that's not true.
"Ambassador Sondland also told me that henow recognized that he had made a
mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White
House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement
of investigations fact, Ambassador Sondland said , everything dependent
on such an announcement, including security assistance. Hesaid thatPresident
Trump wanted President Zelenskyy "in a public box” by making a public statement
about ordering such investigations" - Taylor
Click to expand...

"According to Mr. Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not
asking for a"quid pro quo". But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go
to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election
interference, and that President Zelenskyy should wantto do this himself. Mr.
Morrison said that he told Ambassador Bolton and the NSC lawyers of this phone
call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland." - Taylor
Click to expand...
“I can confirm that the substance of the statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is accurate,” - Morrison
Click to expand...


From Robbery, Extortion, and Bribery in One Place: A Legal Overview of the Hobbs Act

As is true of Hobbs Act robbery, section 1951 proscribes obstructing commerce by means of
extortion, and attempting or conspiring to do so. Section 2 of the federal criminal code treats
those who aid or abet the commission of a felony by another as if they had committed the
underlying crime themselves. Here as elsewhere, “[t]he crime of attempt consists of two
elements. First, the government must prove culpable intent. In other words, the defendant must
have been acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime
that he is charged with attempting. The second element is conduct constituting a substantial step
toward commission of the crime that strongly corroborates that intent.”
Factual impossibility is not a defense. Nor is abandonment after a substantial step has been taken.
Click to expand...
 
Casper said:
Don't you mean the edited transcript? So no we can't just take trump at his word, especially since we know his word is worthless. We have no raw data, so much for that. So it looks like you acknowledge that the Dems are going to take over, whatever that means, seens like some are spending way too much time absorbing nonsense and are now calling anything, even an election trump loses as a call to war.
Personally I am beging to think many have lost all ability at rational thought.
Putin is laughing his ass off, his mission in close to being accomplished.
Click to expand...


Yes, now testimony in Congress involves things that people who actually heard the call said should be in the transcript but Trump's people refused to correct the accounting and said to move the record to the sequestered storage.

It speaks volumes that Trump thinks he is exonerated by what we've been permitted to see. And it's the tip of the iceberg.
 
No. Here's what it's like.

For months a guy wants to kill his wife. He has his employees and friends out looking for a hit man.

Then finally he has an employee who badly needs healthcare for his family. He promises that employee healthcare - IF something mysteriously happens to his wife.

There are many times and ways he pressures the employee, but his employees overhear one conversation where the boss says 'I spend a lot on your healthcare. I would like one favor, though, for something to happen to my wife.'

Alarmed, one of his employees calls the police tip line and reports it. The police start to look into it, and the guy goes into full denial mode, CYA to hide evidence.

His staff learns of notes of conversations he's had and orders them hidden on the company's most secure computer, encrypted, where no one can get to them - but not destroyed to avoid charges for that.

He releases an edited summary of the call the public heard about, with lots of tries to spin it, like 'he was kidding' and 'he was simply saying what lots of husbands do, that he's not entirely happy in his marriage, is that a crime? He follows the law'.

The police come investigating but he orders all his employees - even former ones - to break the law and not talk to them even when they are subpoenaed.

Days after he learns the police were notified, he buys his wife a nice present and says how wonderful she is.

Then, he releases a statement. If it was a conspiracy to kill his wife, it certainly wasn't a very effective one', showing pictures of the jewelry he bought her, and how she isn't killed.

In other words, no, they don't have a good argument.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
You may want to get on board with the new defense. Even Republicans are now admitting there was a quid pro quo, they are just claiming that it isn't illegal unless there is "corrupt intent", to borrow a phrase from Ted Cruz.
Click to expand...

They're right. A quid pro quo isn't wrong necessarily. This was a clear abuse of power, an extortion using the powers of his office - a White House meeting, withholding Javelin missile sales and military aid desperately needed - to try to push the leader to announce he was investigating trump's opponent. There WAS that corrupt intent.
 
Amelia said:
It speaks volumes that Trump thinks he is exonerated by what we've been permitted to see. And it's the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...

Sure, my guys went to the shop, and told the owner, 'nice place you got here, shame if something happened to it', and offered protection for a reasonable fee and were paid. So what? Nothing wrong or illegal with that. Complimented the guy's place. Offered a service the guy freely purchased. Delivered the service - his store is standing, isn't it? This is America, selling a service is a crime?
 
Last edited:
Craig234 said:
Sure, my guys went to the shop, and told the owner, 'nice place you got here, shame if something happened to it', and offered protection for a reasonable fee and were paid. So what? Nothing wrong or illegal with that. Complemented the guy's place. Offered a service the guy freely purchased. Delivered the service - his store is standing, isn't it? This is America, selling a service is a crime?
Click to expand...

I'm at work reading this, and I laughed so loud people actually heard me over the music...I DJ at a club.....well done.
 
Mach said:
No, GOP doesn't have a valid point.

When has the GOP made a valid point in the last 3 years? Please. Well, all the Republicans who spoke out about what a moron Trump was during the Republican primary...the had a good point. But they sold out once he won, and they haven't looked back since.

If you really don't understand why, it's because it's entirely irrelevant. They pressured Ukraine for help against Biden politically for the 2020 election. That was what he did wrong, numerous times, using Rudy and felons for sources of some of the fake dirt they were hoping Ukraine used to warrant such an "investigation", fighting their own state department in favor of CT and criminals, etc. All kinds of wrong, in all kinds of corrupt ways. And don't ****ing lie about Ukraine knowing, they knew for a long time, and complained about it. U.S. state department people actually tried to help them navigate it. God damn, stop the lies, it's your country.

That they eventually, legally, were forced to give Ukraine that aid, especially after being busted for withholding it for improper reasons, changes nothing about what they did wrong.
It's too silly to take seriously, of course it's not a valid argument.

Republicans will eventually argue ti happened, and it's not worthy of impeachment given that the election is a year away.
Trump nutters will be crying about whistle-blowers, decorated military service men, etc., being cockroaches and traitors, and be their usually deplorable anti-American selves.

Democrats will point out that of course its relevant before the election, considering Trump was abusing power specifically to once again cheat in the election......let's use elections to check election abuse? Sounds stupid to me.
Click to expand...

You hit it out of the ball-park with this post. Congratulations, for laying out this extremely coherent argument.
 
Mycroft said:
There was no attempt, either.
Click to expand...

Trump now says there’s ‘Nothing Wrong’ with Quid Pro Quo. It sounds like he’s listening to the GOP Senators.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
You may want to get on board with the new defense. Even Republicans are now admitting there was a quid pro quo, they are just claiming that it isn't illegal unless there is "corrupt intent", to borrow a phrase from Ted Cruz.
Click to expand...

I don't follow herds.
 
Linc said:
Trump now says there’s ‘Nothing Wrong’ with Quid Pro Quo. It sounds like he’s listening to the GOP Senators.
Click to expand...

He also says it didn't happen.
 
Justin Jared said:
"GOP Rep. : 'If there was a quid pro quo, it certainly wasn't a very effective one'"

Link: GOP Rep. : 'If there was a quid pro quo, it certainly wasn't a very effective one' - AOL News

According to the article listed, republicans are being accused of claiming the president shouldn't be in trouble for his Ukraine allegations if ultimately -- the country of Ukraine received the aid that was withheld from them, didn't know it was being withheld, and no investigation into the Bidens or smear campaign against them ever happened by Ukraine. Do you agree with those allegations? Republican rebuttals to the Trump-Ukraine calls for his impeachment by primarily democrats, and accusations of committing a "quip-pro-quo" offense? Not agree? Disagree? Why or Why not?
Click to expand...

It has been proven the Ukrainians knew.

Nonetheless, whether they knew or not does not make a difference simply because Trump's "intent" was to generate help from a foreign country to get dirt on Biden in order to help himself in the 2020 election.

Keep in mind that our country has no way to check on information that another country may manufacture. As such, Ukraine could manufacture information and it would give Trump an unfair advantage.
 
Drawdown said:
As I said in my "fake transcript" the favor he asked for was about crowdstrike.
Click to expand...

Two big problems:

(1) You're assuming the edited version is the correct version. It's not.
(2) Yes, he asked a direct favor when it came to Crowdstrike, but was all done on the text of Trump asking Zelenski to do research for him. That was the point of conversation. Trump was soliciting.
 
Mycroft said:
That didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Of course it did. If it wasn't corrupt, it would have been done earlier( it was known about for a long time before Joe Biden decided to run) it would have used proper channels, and there would have been no efforts to hide it before they got caught.
 
Drawdown said:
quote the specific part in which this quid pro quo was discussed
Click to expand...

You actually think that this president is going to say exactly, "you will investigate Biden or you won't get the money". Even Trump is not that stupid. Trump just says basically, before we get to the matter of money I would like you to do us a favor. People say that Trump sounds like a mobster and this is one of those times, If you have ever watched the Godfather you know what I am talking about.
 
independentusa said:
You actually think that this president is going to say exactly, "you will investigate Biden or you won't get the money". Even Trump is not that stupid. Trump just says basically, before we get to the matter of money I would like you to do us a favor. People say that Trump sounds like a mobster and this is one of those times, If you have ever watched the Godfather you know what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

Michael Cohen told us much the same thing months ago. Today he sits in prison for helping Trump to commit crimes while Trump is a free man in our nations highest office.
 
haymarket said:
Michael Cohen told us much the same thing months ago. Today he sits in prison for helping Trump to commit crimes while Trump is a free man in our nations highest office.
Click to expand...

Micheal Cohen was found guilty of failing to report foreign bank accounts in 2012 and of two bank fraud charges that accused him of lying to obtain millions of dollars in loans after his consulting income dried up. Those were crimes HE committed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom