Democrats Repeat Quid Pro Quo Even Though There Was No Quid Pro Quo

[lennypartiv]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.

 

[Oddball]

There's no quid pro quo if Ukraine got the "quid" and the Orange Jesus didn't get the "pro quo".

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"How much quid could a quid pro quo if a quid pro could quo quid?"

Had to ask.

 

[Syriusly]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo.

Please list your points of evidence.

You can skip the assumptions, presumptions, musings and speculations given by the "witnesses" under Schiff's direction. They do not constitute evidence.

 

[S.J.]

It's the old "repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it". They're hoping that lazy and indifferent people will conclude there was a crime because CNN keeps insisting there was. Make it easy enough for those people to vote and it might make a difference in the outcome.

 

[ColonelAngus]

It was a dog and pony show.

POTUS was railroaded and we all know it.

None of the cvnt lefties on here will even explain why Republicans shouldn’t be able to call witnesses because THEY KNOW ITS BULLSHIT.

 

[lennypartiv]

I wasted 4 or 5 hours of my life watching those hearings.
A Democrat witness saying there was quid pro quo does not mean there really was quid pro quo.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I wasted 4 or 5 hours of my life watching those hearings.
A Democrat witness saying there was quid pro quo does not mean there really was quid pro quo.

Sondland said it was his PRESUMPTION!!!

Dimms are going to impeach based on one persons PRESUMPTION.

It’s beyond ridiculous.

 

[Syriusly]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo.

Please list your points of evidence.

You can skip the assumptions, presumptions, musings and speculations given by the "witnesses" under Schiff's direction. They do not constitute evidence.

That you don't think that they constitute evidence really doesn't matter to me.
I will just put you down as pretending like there were no witnesses.

Just pointing out- not even Trump denied what the witnesses said- he just instead argued that no one could of heard his booming voice.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I wasted 4 or 5 hours of my life watching those hearings.
A Democrat witness saying there was quid pro quo does not mean there really was quid pro quo.

Wow. I only wasted maybe 30 minutes overall on highlights.

The rest, I could read faster than they could tell me.

 

[Syriusly]

I wasted 4 or 5 hours of my life watching those hearings.
A Democrat witness saying there was quid pro quo does not mean there really was quid pro quo.

Sondland said it was his PRESUMPTION!!!

Dimms are going to impeach based on one persons PRESUMPTION.

It’s beyond ridiculous.

Actually Sondland said it was his presumption that aid was being withheld.

He said quite clearly that there was a quid pro quo for a meeting with Trump- and that was direct from Giuliani- Trump's bag man in Ukraine.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo.

Please list your points of evidence.

You can skip the assumptions, presumptions, musings and speculations given by the "witnesses" under Schiff's direction. They do not constitute evidence.

That you don't think that they constitute evidence really doesn't matter to me.

That you think they do matters to no one of any import.

 

[Syriusly]

It's the old "repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it". They're hoping that lazy and indifferent people will conclude there was a crime because CNN keeps insisting there was. Make it easy enough for those people to vote and it might make a difference in the outcome.

LOL- Trump's entire Presidency has been about repeating lies often enough.

You can pretend that Trump didn't demand an investigation into his political rival in order to get a White House meeting and the release of military aid- but that is what the testimony showed.

 

[lennypartiv]

Actually Sondland said it was his presumption that aid was being withheld.
He said quite clearly that there was a quid pro quo for a meeting with Trump- and that was direct from Giuliani- Trump's bag man in Ukraine.

The Senators will have to let Rudy testify. Once Rudy clears Trump, the Senate can vote Trump innocent.

 

[Siete]

It's the old "repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it". They're hoping that lazy and indifferent people will conclude there was a crime because CNN keeps insisting there was. Make it easy enough for those people to vote and it might make a difference in the outcome.

really ?

then that explains this -





F Trump

 

[MarathonMike]

This was the REAL Quid Pro Quo obvious to anyone with above a 5th grade education:

"I told those Ukrainians to fire that prosecutor or you ain't gettin the billion! You got 6 hours. And son of a bitch they fired him!"

 

[lennypartiv]

LOL- Trump's entire Presidency has been about repeating lies often enough.
You can pretend that Trump didn't demand an investigation into his political rival in order to get a White House meeting and the release of military aid- but that is what the testimony showed.

Another Democrat drinking the kool-aid from Rachel Maddow.

 

[BluesLegend]

It's the old "repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it".

Also known as the nightly news.

 

[S.J.]

It's the old "repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it". They're hoping that lazy and indifferent people will conclude there was a crime because CNN keeps insisting there was. Make it easy enough for those people to vote and it might make a difference in the outcome.

LOL- Trump's entire Presidency has been about repeating lies often enough.

You can pretend that Trump didn't demand an investigation into his political rival in order to get a White House meeting and the release of military aid- but that is what the testimony showed.

Um, actually it's NOT what the testimony showed. Not ONE of the witnesses said there was a "demand". The closest they came was to say it was their opinion (or presumption) that there was. Think that's enough to remove him from office?