Quid Pro Quo

[Syriusly]

Nonsense, show us where Trump asked a foreign leader to help him defeat a political opponent. I have asked this many times and, so far, no reply. That being said I CAN show you where Biden threatened to withhold $1 Billion unless a Ukrainian prosecutor (the one that was on his son Hunter's tail for corruption) was fired. And well...."son of a bitch" the guy was fired.

No, that's where the prosecutor had abandoned/stopped/stalled the investigation of Burisma/Hunter.

Burisma is the most corrupt company probably in the world.

Oh Burisma is chump change compared to this organization

 

[Leo123]

Now Trump is changing his story from 'no quid pro quo' to Trump is just a corruption fighter!

Fighting corruption all around the world- just so long as he can say corruption and Biden in the same sentence.

Where did Trump ask for a quid pro quo? It doesn't exist anywhere in the transcript. Besides if one is investigating corruption, they are not asking for a quid pro quo. We knew about dirty Biden 2 years ago and now, the heat is coming down on him. Frankly, Trump would win easily going up against Biden.

Read the transcript and read the texts from the diplomats. It is VERY clear that the White House meeting with Trump was dependent on the President of Ukraine publicly announcing an investigation of Biden.

Why did Trump demand a public announcement of an investigation of Biden? Because this was all about politics.

I read the transcript and there is NOTHING in there where Trump withholds anything in requesting an investigation of corruption. And isn't it ironic that Biden's job was to root out corruption in the new Ukrainian regime? When it surfaced that Biden's son was involved in Burisma and getting paid heftily for a position he had absolutely no expertise in, Washington eyebrows raised but, the President at the time (Obama) said Biden had no conflict of interest. You really have to be a world-class dope to think Biden ain't dirty.

 

[Leo123]

Oh Burisma is chump change compared to this organization
View attachment 283191

BISS, meh

 

[lennypartiv]

A) New Ukrainian President desperately wants a meeting in the White House with President Trump. President Trump tells him he gets his meeting if he investigates Biden- his political rival.- quid pro quo.
B) What did Joe Biden 'do with his son'- show us the evidence. I gave you the actual quotes of members of the Administration showing a quid pro quo.
C) Trump is running up huge deficits, spending is at all time highs- and Trump's solution to corruption is Ukraine is his theory about something that happened 4 years ago- and happens to include the name "Biden" and no one else.
Show us all of the other examples of Trump asking Ukraine to investigate for corruption anyone other than someone named "Biden"
And yes the impeachment will proceed.

Fantasize all you want, but there was no quid pro quo.

 

[joaquinmiller]

A) New Ukrainian President desperately wants a meeting in the White House with President Trump. President Trump tells him he gets his meeting if he investigates Biden- his political rival.- quid pro quo.
B) What did Joe Biden 'do with his son'- show us the evidence. I gave you the actual quotes of members of the Administration showing a quid pro quo.
C) Trump is running up huge deficits, spending is at all time highs- and Trump's solution to corruption is Ukraine is his theory about something that happened 4 years ago- and happens to include the name "Biden" and no one else.
Show us all of the other examples of Trump asking Ukraine to investigate for corruption anyone other than someone named "Biden"
And yes the impeachment will proceed.

Fantasize all you want, but there was no quid pro quo.

That's no longer operative. The new TP is, "there was a quid pro quo, but there's nothing wrong with it". Please update.

 

[Zorro!]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

That's nonsense.

There is no corrupt quid pro quo.

Getting to the bottom of the unlawful interference in the 2016 election is in the interests of The United States. There is an active Justice Department investigation into possible Ukrainian interference in that event.

The outcome of the investigation might redound to Trump’s benefit (or it might not). But the Mueller investigation might have redounded to the Democrats’ benefit. That was no reason not to investigate and not to pressure other countries to cooperate (as Democrats did with Ukraine in furtherance of Mueller’s investigation).

There is a clear national interest in investigating foreign interference in the 2016 election. If not, why did Mueller spend large amounts of time and money investigating that subject?

The Mueller investigation pertained to Russian interference. But interference in our election and political process by Ukraine, if it occurred, should also be a matter of concern, as the Democrats would be insisting if it served their interest to do.

The worst, we are left with is Trump using military aid as a means of pressuring Ukraine to cooperate with an existing U.S. investigation into a very serious matter — foreign interference in our election. And the aid was not withheld.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But, if you want to try to remove Trump from office for that, go for it.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

That's nonsense.

There is no corrupt quid pro quo.

Getting to the bottom of the unlawful interference in the 2016 election is in the interests of The United States. There is an active Justice Department investigation into possible Ukrainian interference in that event.

The outcome of the investigation might redound to Trump’s benefit (or it might not). But the Mueller investigation might have redounded to the Democrats’ benefit. That was no reason not to investigate and not to pressure other countries to cooperate (as Democrats did with Ukraine in furtherance of Mueller’s investigation).

There is a clear national interest in investigating foreign interference in the 2016 election. If not, why did Mueller spend large amounts of time and money investigating that subject?

The Mueller investigation pertained to Russian interference. But interference in our election and political process by Ukraine, if it occurred, should also be a matter of concern, as the Democrats would be insisting if it served their interest to do.

The worst, we are left with is Trump using military aid as a means of pressuring Ukraine to cooperate with an existing U.S. investigation into a very serious matter — foreign interference in our election. And the aid was not withheld.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But, if you want to try to remove Trump from office for that, go for it.

How does Trump's refusal to be interviewed by Mueller fit in your account?

 

[Zorro!]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

That's nonsense.

There is no corrupt quid pro quo.

Getting to the bottom of the unlawful interference in the 2016 election is in the interests of The United States. There is an active Justice Department investigation into possible Ukrainian interference in that event.

The outcome of the investigation might redound to Trump’s benefit (or it might not). But the Mueller investigation might have redounded to the Democrats’ benefit. That was no reason not to investigate and not to pressure other countries to cooperate (as Democrats did with Ukraine in furtherance of Mueller’s investigation).

There is a clear national interest in investigating foreign interference in the 2016 election. If not, why did Mueller spend large amounts of time and money investigating that subject?

The Mueller investigation pertained to Russian interference. But interference in our election and political process by Ukraine, if it occurred, should also be a matter of concern, as the Democrats would be insisting if it served their interest to do.

The worst, we are left with is Trump using military aid as a means of pressuring Ukraine to cooperate with an existing U.S. investigation into a very serious matter — foreign interference in our election. And the aid was not withheld.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But, if you want to try to remove Trump from office for that, go for it.

How does Trump's refusal to be interviewed by Mueller fit in your account?

They negotiated terms of an interview until Mueller dropped the request.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

That's nonsense.

There is no corrupt quid pro quo.

Getting to the bottom of the unlawful interference in the 2016 election is in the interests of The United States. There is an active Justice Department investigation into possible Ukrainian interference in that event.

The outcome of the investigation might redound to Trump’s benefit (or it might not). But the Mueller investigation might have redounded to the Democrats’ benefit. That was no reason not to investigate and not to pressure other countries to cooperate (as Democrats did with Ukraine in furtherance of Mueller’s investigation).

There is a clear national interest in investigating foreign interference in the 2016 election. If not, why did Mueller spend large amounts of time and money investigating that subject?

The Mueller investigation pertained to Russian interference. But interference in our election and political process by Ukraine, if it occurred, should also be a matter of concern, as the Democrats would be insisting if it served their interest to do.

The worst, we are left with is Trump using military aid as a means of pressuring Ukraine to cooperate with an existing U.S. investigation into a very serious matter — foreign interference in our election. And the aid was not withheld.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But, if you want to try to remove Trump from office for that, go for it.

How does Trump's refusal to be interviewed by Mueller fit in your account?

They negotiated terms of an interview until Mueller dropped the request.

Trump said publicly, 30 times, that he wanted to do, or was looking forward to, an interview with Mueller. If you believed him, you likely also thought Mexico was going to pay for a wall.

 

[Zorro!]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

That's nonsense.

There is no corrupt quid pro quo.

Getting to the bottom of the unlawful interference in the 2016 election is in the interests of The United States. There is an active Justice Department investigation into possible Ukrainian interference in that event.

The outcome of the investigation might redound to Trump’s benefit (or it might not). But the Mueller investigation might have redounded to the Democrats’ benefit. That was no reason not to investigate and not to pressure other countries to cooperate (as Democrats did with Ukraine in furtherance of Mueller’s investigation).

There is a clear national interest in investigating foreign interference in the 2016 election. If not, why did Mueller spend large amounts of time and money investigating that subject?

The Mueller investigation pertained to Russian interference. But interference in our election and political process by Ukraine, if it occurred, should also be a matter of concern, as the Democrats would be insisting if it served their interest to do.

The worst, we are left with is Trump using military aid as a means of pressuring Ukraine to cooperate with an existing U.S. investigation into a very serious matter — foreign interference in our election. And the aid was not withheld.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But, if you want to try to remove Trump from office for that, go for it.

How does Trump's refusal to be interviewed by Mueller fit in your account?

They negotiated terms of an interview until Mueller dropped the request.

Trump said publicly, 30 times, that he wanted to do, or was looking forward to, an interview with Mueller. If you believed him, you likely also thought Mexico was going to pay for a wall.

It's not his problem that Dirty Bob dropped the request. It will be interesting to see if Dirty Bob's "false statements" charge against Flynn sticks.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

That's nonsense.

There is no corrupt quid pro quo.

Getting to the bottom of the unlawful interference in the 2016 election is in the interests of The United States. There is an active Justice Department investigation into possible Ukrainian interference in that event.

The outcome of the investigation might redound to Trump’s benefit (or it might not). But the Mueller investigation might have redounded to the Democrats’ benefit. That was no reason not to investigate and not to pressure other countries to cooperate (as Democrats did with Ukraine in furtherance of Mueller’s investigation).

There is a clear national interest in investigating foreign interference in the 2016 election. If not, why did Mueller spend large amounts of time and money investigating that subject?

The Mueller investigation pertained to Russian interference. But interference in our election and political process by Ukraine, if it occurred, should also be a matter of concern, as the Democrats would be insisting if it served their interest to do.

The worst, we are left with is Trump using military aid as a means of pressuring Ukraine to cooperate with an existing U.S. investigation into a very serious matter — foreign interference in our election. And the aid was not withheld.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But, if you want to try to remove Trump from office for that, go for it.

How does Trump's refusal to be interviewed by Mueller fit in your account?

They negotiated terms of an interview until Mueller dropped the request.

Trump said publicly, 30 times, that he wanted to do, or was looking forward to, an interview with Mueller. If you believed him, you likely also thought Mexico was going to pay for a wall.

It's not his problem that Dirty Bob dropped the request.

I hear ya. The Breaker of Deals couldn't negotiate an interview. So much Nguyening.

 

[sealybobo]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

They are having a hard time with this because now the guy who admitted there was quidproquo is now saying that's not what he meant. The lying media is evil they say for using what he said against him. He says that's not what he said, even though that's exactly what he said. Amazing how they can say something on camera and the next day deny they said what they said.

How dare they quote him and make a big deal out of him admitting guilt. We are living in crazy times where Trump is proving that the Republican party will allow a criminal to run their party.

Lindsay Graham Suggests Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Might Convince Him To Back Impeachment
The Republican senator also called Trump an “equal opportunity abuser of people” and a “handful” in an interview with Axios.

Graham’s interview on Tuesday preceded acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s declaration Thursday that Trump’s Ukraine dealing concerning Biden was a quid pro quo.

 

[bendog]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

They are having a hard time with this because now the guy who admitted there was quidproquo is now saying that's not what he meant. The lying media is evil they say for using what he said against him. He says that's not what he said, even though that's exactly what he said. Amazing how they can say something on camera and the next day deny they said what they said.

How dare they quote him and make a big deal out of him admitting guilt. We are living in crazy times where Trump is proving that the Republican party will allow a criminal to run their party.

Lindsay Graham Suggests Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Might Convince Him To Back Impeachment
The Republican senator also called Trump an “equal opportunity abuser of people” and a “handful” in an interview with Axios.

Graham’s interview on Tuesday preceded acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s declaration Thursday that Trump’s Ukraine dealing concerning Biden was a quid pro quo.

Mick's problem is that there is nothing wrong with a quid pro quo so long as both what we offer and what we demand are official US policy. The problem is that nothing Mick has said that we demanded was official US policy: either reinvesting Hunter and trying to tie in Joe too, or Crowdstrike - the US intelligence committee and senate closed the book on that bs long ago. And Trump has Rudy going behind the Dept of State's back on this stuff.

That said, the day Leslie votes to remove Trump from office is the day he either comes out or turns straight, neither of which will ever happen.

 

[sealybobo]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

They are having a hard time with this because now the guy who admitted there was quidproquo is now saying that's not what he meant. The lying media is evil they say for using what he said against him. He says that's not what he said, even though that's exactly what he said. Amazing how they can say something on camera and the next day deny they said what they said.

How dare they quote him and make a big deal out of him admitting guilt. We are living in crazy times where Trump is proving that the Republican party will allow a criminal to run their party.

Lindsay Graham Suggests Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Might Convince Him To Back Impeachment
The Republican senator also called Trump an “equal opportunity abuser of people” and a “handful” in an interview with Axios.

Graham’s interview on Tuesday preceded acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s declaration Thursday that Trump’s Ukraine dealing concerning Biden was a quid pro quo.

Mick's problem is that there is nothing wrong with a quid pro quo so long as both what we offer and what we demand are official US policy. The problem is that nothing Mick has said that we demanded was official US policy: either reinvesting Hunter and trying to tie in Joe too, or Crowdstrike - the US intelligence committee and senate closed the book on that bs long ago. And Trump has Rudy going behind the Dept of State's back on this stuff.

That said, the day Leslie votes to remove Trump from office is the day he either comes out or turns straight, neither of which will ever happen.

I think Republicans are missing a great opportunity here. Imagine if Trump stepped down or was impeached and the GOP nominated a moderate Republican to run in 2020. That moderate can say "I will give you the great economy Trump gave you minus all the bullshit/baggage that comes with Trump. And no more horrible foreign policy. No more making our allies our enemies.

If Trump wasn't an asshole he would have won for sure in 2020. Now, I don't think so. I think he has done enough damage that a lot of people who didn't vote are going to show up to vote him out and a lot of people who voted for him are not going to show up.

How many former generals and republicans have to speak out against Trump before we take his hand off the red button? Trump is insane. And he is clearly a criminal. He surrounds himself with horrible yes men and even they can't say yes to what he is asking for.

 

[sealybobo]

‘They are livid’: Trump’s withdrawal from Syria prompts rare public criticism from current, former military officials

If they aren't going to vote for Trump, I'm sure a lot of civilian voters won't either. Trump's defense to this is to call any of those military officials RINO's or DEEP STATE Republicans.

Who was the Republican who recently said he would not vote for Trump again?

 

[bendog]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

They are having a hard time with this because now the guy who admitted there was quidproquo is now saying that's not what he meant. The lying media is evil they say for using what he said against him. He says that's not what he said, even though that's exactly what he said. Amazing how they can say something on camera and the next day deny they said what they said.

How dare they quote him and make a big deal out of him admitting guilt. We are living in crazy times where Trump is proving that the Republican party will allow a criminal to run their party.

Lindsay Graham Suggests Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Might Convince Him To Back Impeachment
The Republican senator also called Trump an “equal opportunity abuser of people” and a “handful” in an interview with Axios.

Graham’s interview on Tuesday preceded acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s declaration Thursday that Trump’s Ukraine dealing concerning Biden was a quid pro quo.

Mick's problem is that there is nothing wrong with a quid pro quo so long as both what we offer and what we demand are official US policy. The problem is that nothing Mick has said that we demanded was official US policy: either reinvesting Hunter and trying to tie in Joe too, or Crowdstrike - the US intelligence committee and senate closed the book on that bs long ago. And Trump has Rudy going behind the Dept of State's back on this stuff.

That said, the day Leslie votes to remove Trump from office is the day he either comes out or turns straight, neither of which will ever happen.

I think Republicans are missing a great opportunity here. Imagine if Trump stepped down or was impeached and the GOP nominated a moderate Republican to run in 2020. That moderate can say "I will give you the great economy Trump gave you minus all the bullshit/baggage that comes with Trump. And no more horrible foreign policy. No more making our allies our enemies.

If Trump wasn't an asshole he would have won for sure in 2020. Now, I don't think so. I think he has done enough damage that a lot of people who didn't vote are going to show up to vote him out and a lot of people who voted for him are not going to show up.

How many former generals and republicans have to speak out against Trump before we take his hand off the red button? Trump is insane. And he is clearly a criminal. He surrounds himself with horrible yes men and even they can't say yes to what he is asking for.

I'm not sure what the republican party is anymore. The first tax cut on corporations is defensible on the theory that taxes on biz actually reduce money for expansion. The second tax cut on .1% and 1% individ rates in red states, while ending Salt taxes in states that actually pay the most federal taxes for welfare to red states, is not economically defensible.

Tariffs inevitably make goods more expensive regardless where they are made, and there's no empirical support that taxes on mfrting raise wages. So supporters of the gop on this issue are economic illiterates. Theft of IP hurts the US economy, but tariffs and IP theft are separate issues that do different things. Trump attempts to tie them together with China, but so far China is fine with reducing exports to the US, but not fine on changing on IP.

Not all Trump base voters are illiterates or racists. I'm all for a secure border and registering non-citizen US workers. Trump's not accomplishing either, but even the gop is fighting him.

 

[the other mike]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Is quid pro quo the same as son of a bitch ?

 

[BlindBoo]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Is quid pro quo the same as son of a bitch ?

Did the VP ever mention his son when he was discussing Obama's foreign policy objectives? Was that demand something that went outside the normal diplomatic channels, without the consultation of our allies in the region? Did Obama send his private attorney to set up the specific demands that Joe's son not be investigated in exchange for our aid?

 

[the other mike]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Is quid pro quo the same as son of a bitch ?

Did the VP ever mention his son when he was discussing Obama's foreign policy objectives? Was that demand something that went outside the normal diplomatic channels, without the consultation of our allies in the region? Did Obama send his private attorney to set up the specific demands that Joe's son not be investigated in exchange for our aid?

When we're talking about a job that pays $80,000 a month to a kid who just got kicked out of the Navy Reserves for cocaine, who by the way knows nothing about the oil and gas business? Um?m? ....yes I think there are some questions to ask.

 

[bendog]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Is quid pro quo the same as son of a bitch ?

Did the VP ever mention his son when he was discussing Obama's foreign policy objectives? Was that demand something that went outside the normal diplomatic channels, without the consultation of our allies in the region? Did Obama send his private attorney to set up the specific demands that Joe's son not be investigated in exchange for our aid?

When we're talking about a job that pays $80,000 a month to a kid who just got kicked out of the Navy Reserves for cocaine, who by the way knows nothing about the oil and gas business? Um?m? ....yes I think there are some questions to ask.

Pardon me if I doubt your sincerity based upon your disinterest in Trump's offspring.