GOP senators prepared to acknowledge quid pro quo, plan to argue it was legal

SNIP
An increasing number of GOP senators are preparing to acknowledge that there was a quid pro quo in President Trump’s leveraging of military aid with Ukraine as a means to urge the country to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, The Washington Post reported Friday.

The Post noted that the shift in tone comes after a private Senate GOP lunch on Wednesday, when Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said there may have been quid pro quo but that the leveraging of military aid to another country is something the U.S. government does often.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also weighed in, saying a quid pro quo isn’t illegal except when there is “corrupt intent,” which he argued was not the case during Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, according to the Post.
ENDSNIP

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...ledge-quid-pro-quo-plan-to-argue-it-was-legal

Finally... here we go... Some R's finally planting their flag on Quid Pro Quo Hill....

Frankly, I don't know how some GOP are going to claim QPQ was done and is OK while some continue to argue no QPQ... Gonna have to be one or the other in the end, I would imagine...

But they're Republicans... nothing has to make actual logical sense...

What say you?

 

Either way its a big nothing burger and the Dems are wasting our time with this BS.

 

Meh, unless it was actually carried out it is meaningless. Talking is not a crime.

 

There is no crime of quid pro quo. None. No federal, no state crime, no anti-QPQ statute, no anti-QPQ regulation. Nothing, nada.

QPQ is a Latin expression, not a crime.

The liberal ignorance and unwillingness to learn from their own mistakes (there is no crime of collusion either) is staggering.

 

that's the only logical stance after Mulvaney's elluded that there's gonna be evidence of a QPQ. Tucker Carlson had the right take of this from the beginning and the Republicans saying no QPQ are making us look dumb imo.

The question i find interesting is whether the Republican Senators are going to put all they have in defending Trump or are they gonna take a dive and give half hearted defenses.... Going with the no QPQ is a half hearted defense

 

What do say I? Trump isn’t going anywhere, that’s what I say.

Unless you think Trump is going someplace else then what’s the point of this thread?

 

It was a good phone call it was a productive phone call.

maybe paraphrased a bit but that's what Lindsey Graham said just a couple days ago.

 

Obstruct the investigation
Deny the event happened
Admit it happened but there is nothing illegal about it
Admit it may be illegal but her emails!
Ignore as dozens of people are arrested or removed
Create new scandal

Seems to be working well so far, throw in some tax breaks for the super rich, trolling over half the country and destroying environmental protections and you have the Republican party platform in a nutshell.

 

That is because this has never been about the truth for them, it’s about leading the sheep to believing something legal is not.

 

There is the crime of bribery, election interference, obstruction, witness tampering, finance violations and conspiracy however.

And once trump goes under oath we can add perjury to the list.

New reports are coming out that he is “gifting” senators cash that will ultimately be voting on his removal, thats more obstruction and more conspiracy charges.

 

This is why Trump can't get anyone to support him. If you would have tried to support any of his previous positions this one would shoot you down in flames. This one would spell disaster for them.

 

Two problems with your list 1. Since he's President he can't be indicted and because of that we wouldn't have a clear idea whether those crimes were committed and 2. Other politicians and entire governmental foreign policies have exerted pressure by way of withholding Funding until conditions were agreed upon. Campaign fiance seems to be a problem for many reasons and firstly because like Mueller found out its difficult to put value on none concrete things

Also in my opinion for those crimes to be applicable you'd have to prove intent (like messages directly saying Trump said hold up the funds so we can win 2020) otherwise Trump can just say he was just fulfilling the Treaty and his job as head of the executive branch. Unless you prove that i believe Trump stakes like Hillary and her emails

 

Farcical. Trump has been very insistent. There was no quid pro quo. The position those Senators are taking makes Trump a blatant liar. Dunno how that works.

 

Lol no it doesn’t. Geez

 

lying better than committing a crime....

That's the position Trump has put us in. Im not gonna blame the whistle blower or the deepstate because he shouldve known they were setting traps. It happened to Reagan and probably most GOP presidents and they for the most part out smarted them.

 

Ummm...why would he lie if he was not hoping he could cover up.....whatever. In any event, I disagree with those alleged Senators. No POTUS can legitimately leverage US aid to assist merely the POTUS, not the Nation, gain a personal POTUS political election advantage. That is corrupt, in any Man's language.

 

It's a video so if your eyes don't see it you can use your ears.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...px.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/

 

Several people have predicted this as it has happened before when Trump was trapped.
So they are really going to try and say there was no connection to Biden's in all this?
Crazy.

 

Care to explain what that video had to do with my comment to Bush Lawyer?

 

I guess once Mulvaney let the cat out of the bag they are left with no choice.

 

Which is why the constitution has the mechanism of impeachment.

Exerting pressure to bring out policies or results that will benefit America are one thing, wanting dirt on your political opponents and holding taxpayer funds to do it is another. We see this with trump directing public funds to his personal properties as well.

The intent could be proven if he knowingly hides evidence or obstructs the investigation. Malice intent even.

 

The Constitution gives the elected-President authority to conduct foreign policy. The US and Ukraine have a treaty whereby the president can make inquiry about corruption in Ukraine. Un-elected ,Trump-hating bureaucrats don't have the authority to overrule, or interpret, a president's legitimate conduct of office. From the volunteered transcript of his call to President Shelensky, Trump's conduct was legitimate.

Any claims by people that they read the mind of the President Trump in this matter are just SEMANTIC BS to overturn the 2016 election.

The people to investigate here are Joe Biden (who is the only one to admit corruption); his son Hunter( who will have to give testimony how he got his position with this Burisma Holdings in the first place); the supposed whistleblower (who's identity is an open secret at this time) to see if he did, or did not, work for Joe Biden and did, or did not, collude with Adam Schiff to frame PRESIDENT TRUMP one more time.

There will also have to be another SPECIAL COUNSEL uncover all these things if they are not volunteered.

Interesting times are ahead.

 

Do you have a link to that Treaty? Further, there is no way there will be any State-sanctioned arrangement that allows any POTUS to leverage US taxpayers funds for the sole purpose of the personal political election benefit of that POTUS.

That election stands. Trump is POTUS, but not, as I suspect he believes, God.

Go for it. No skin off my nose.

 

This is the kind of narrative that gets these news agencies the title of Fake News.

Yes, there was a quid pro quo. The republicans are not saying it included Joe Biden. The quid pro quo included dealing with corruption. We, the USA, gets something and so does Ukraine. That's the quid pro quo that the Republicans admit occurred. Maybe you can find one or two who think Trump personally was using our tax dollars to help his campaign but that isn't a sign that Rublicans are changing their position. That is just one or two. Ted Cruz is not one of them either.

 

"...That Treaty"?

Sorry, I am not a library. Here in the States, the news programs have talked about it for several weeks. How about sending me all treaties pertaining to personal aboriginal election benefits instead?

"...For the sole purpose of personal political election benefit of that Potus"?

It is easy to guess you're repeating Democrat talking points/BS about President Trump.

Relax. Here's everything in a nutshell.

The Democrats have been losing control in the US for over 10 years. Under Obama, they lost a combined 1000+ local, state and federal seats.

In 2016, they were expecting a big comeback. They thought they would hold the White House and regain both houses of Congress. Instead, 30 states and 85% of the counties in the country voted for Trump. It was the biggest upset in US History.

(I did not vote for Trump. I thought he would lose and I thought he would be a disaster as president. I was wrong he is the most successful president since Reagan.)

Maybe no one has mentioned this in Australia, but since 2016 the US economy has had a sustainable boom. Unemployment is 3.6%--the lowest in 50 years. The stock market is at sustainable record highs. The US is energy independent for the first time in 70 years. The ISIS Caliphate was smashed. A lot of other positive things have happened.

I don't support/attack people because I am told to. I support winners and Trump is a winner. The Dems don't see it that way. Trump made fools of them and they want payback.

So far, they failed with the Russia Hoax, the Stormy fiasco, the Kavanaugh botch and several other small smears. This Ukraine gate is Russia Hoax lite. It's their last chance to dump him before he wallops them again in 2020.

"Leveraged Taxpayer Funds"?

By Trump? Never happened.

The only one who did "leverage taxpayer funds" was Joe Biden. Three years ago, he threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid to Ukraine unless they fired a prosecutor who was preparing to interview Hunter Biden and his relation to Burisma Holdings. Biden Sr. gave the Ukrainians 6 hours to fire the prosecutor who was going to interview Hunter. At the very least that is suspicious and merits a look see.

How do we know this happened?

This is Joe Biden, the king of the big mouth.

He was dumb enough to brag about it on camera at a foreign relations conference last year. He looked like he didn't realize he was being filmed. He was spinning a yarn in his usual style.

By contrast, Trumps phone conversation with President Zelensky was also recorded and it was appropriate--nothing impeachable no matter what the Dems claim.

Pity the next president who has to put up with this BS--in 2024.