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.
"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.
Last edited:
