“Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes”

[Jose Fly]

Recently I read a Yahoo News article, I can fetch it if anyone is interested, but I also don't want to go around posting random articles... but it appeared to state that the FBI may investigate the whistleblower. This is significant because if the whistleblower is determined to have done some shady business, it may send the impeachment process to a halt.

No, you have that wrong. The FBI wants to interview the whistleblower because they're concerned Bill Barr's DoJ didn't even look into potential counterintelligence issues stemming from the complaint.

FBI seeks interview with CIA whistleblower

"Some officials within the FBI, which received its own copy of the whistleblower’s complaint in early September, chafed at a Justice Department move they believed was aimed at shutting down any inquiry at all, especially into potential counterintelligence issues raised by the allegations, according to a former senior U.S intelligence official who has discussed the matter with current FBI counterintelligence agents."

 

[Father Heathen]

When did this country become so corrupt that the investigation of corruption became illegal?

When will pointing out that there is rampant corruption become illegal?

Trump, Republicans, and those who've voted for them have set a precedent where accountability, ethics, legality, checks and balances, etc. have been tossed to the wayside in favor of blind partisan loyalty. To be "moral", simply oppose LGBT and women's rights. It has nothing to do with having honesty, honor, integrity, character, etc., which are now considered useless and obstructive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Recently I read a Yahoo News article, I can fetch it if anyone is interested, but I also don't want to go around posting random articles... but it appeared to state that the FBI may investigate the whistleblower. This is significant because if the whistleblower is determined to have done some shady business, it may send the impeachment process to a halt.

Why would it do that? The whistleblower was not a direct witness, so he really has no testimony to give. What he did, quite rightly, was to shine the light of day on these actions by the president.

In a court of law hearsay cannot be used as evidence, but when it comes to a police investigation hearsay can be used by police to guide who they question. The whistleblower began the investigation. Even if his motives were not pure what he blew the whistle on has been verified. His job is done as far as this investigation goes. The Republicans are trying to punish someone that should not be punished. At least not for the corruption that he uncovered.

 

[sun rise]

American foreign aid commonly comes with strings attached. American taxpayers should not unconditionally fund corrupt foreign entities.

True but irrelevant since the strings were for an investigation of Biden's son. And that is the crux here.

 

[sun rise]

Why would it do that? The whistleblower was not a direct witness, so he really has no testimony to give. What he did, quite rightly, was to shine the light of day on these actions by the president.

In a court of law hearsay cannot be used as evidence, but when it comes to a police investigation hearsay can be used by police to guide who they question. The whistleblower began the investigation. Even if his motives were not pure what he blew the whistle on has been verified. His job is done as far as this investigation goes. The Republicans are trying to punish someone that should not be punished. At least not for the corruption that he uncovered.

The point is that the Trump Party is trying to distract people from the crux of the investigation by bringing up all sorts of irrelevant issues, this being one.

 

[sun rise]

No, you have that wrong. The FBI wants to interview the whistleblower because they're concerned Bill Barr's DoJ didn't even look into potential counterintelligence issues stemming from the complaint.

FBI seeks interview with CIA whistleblower

"Some officials within the FBI, which received its own copy of the whistleblower’s complaint in early September, chafed at a Justice Department move they believed was aimed at shutting down any inquiry at all, especially into potential counterintelligence issues raised by the allegations, according to a former senior U.S intelligence official who has discussed the matter with current FBI counterintelligence agents."

If the current regime in power had not corrupted as much of government as they could, I would agree here. I don't trust the Trump FBI as I don't trust the Trump anything given his swampy behavior. "one bad apple..."

 

[Jose Fly]

And the fallout from Sondland's testimony begins.....

VP Mike Pence is basically saying Sondland is lying: Jim Acosta on Twitter

And Rudy Giuliani is trying to throw Ambassador Volker under the bus....oops, looks like Rudy has deleted his tweet where he said he was acting at Volker's request. Someone probably pointed out to him that he had earlier tweeted that he was in Ukraine as Trump's personal lawyer.

That's the thing with lying....oftentimes it's hard to keep your stories straight.

 

[cladking]

Trump, Republicans, and those who've voted for them have set a precedent where accountability, ethics, legality, checks and balances, etc. have been tossed to the wayside in favor of blind partisan loyalty. To be "moral", simply oppose LGBT and women's rights. It has nothing to do with having honesty, honor, integrity, character, etc., which are now considered useless and obstructive.

I disagree.

The problem is rampant corruption and this is just the tip of the iceberg. The insurance industry bragged they lobbied Congress for 5.5 billion dollars to get Obamacare passed. What is so sad about this is this is a paltry amount for which to rent congressmen. For a measly $18 per American they were able to get legislation that cost every American hundreds upon hundreds of dollars. If we're going to sell government to Russia, China, Microsoft, or the highest bidder we should get a lot more than this!!! A taxpayer union could out bid all of these very easily but they don't allow middle class people to buy college degrees and they don't let middleclass voters rent Congress.

Remember this is the same Congress that voted to make taxpayers pay the insurance for building infrastructure (like power plants) on the beaches. On the one hand they pay ADM bosses to waste energy making ethanol and on the other they use our money to build in the path of the melting ice cap"s".

So Trump is accused of wanting corruption possibly committed by an American in another country investigated.

Of course he was corrupt. Corruption runs rampant in every country and Biden Jr couldn't have conducted any business at all unless he played the game. But even the most corrupt governments still have some rules that are enforced. We don't know if the guy exceeded these standards or not, do we?

The world gets crazier every day. As companies and products accelerate in their spirals down the toilet CEO's are enriched more than ever before. It is an old boys club and idiocracy. And Americans sit by with bread and circuses as more liberty is lost and no one in Washington represents their interests. The impeachment is principally more circus as well as an attempt to remove an official who isn't playing their game right. It's not about Trump ort the way he 's presented by the quisling press. It's about him not dancing to the same tune. And this post isn't support for Trump so don't tell me what a scoundrel he is.

 

[cladking]

Yet another person who doesn't see the difference between "investigating corruption" and "attempting to coerce a foreign political power into investigating a political opponent for personal gain using access to foreign aid as a bargaining chip".

Honestly, the attempt to obfuscate this investigation continue to astound me. And I suppose Richard Nixon shouldn't have been investigated either. After-all, who can blame him? All he wanted to do was make sure the Democratic National Convention was above board. Totally innocent behaviour!

So your contention is that crime can't even be investigated if it's committed by a political opponent.

This is funny since we really have only one party in Washington. The party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. No doubt Trump likes this system but he isn't playing by the rules of the left wing or the right wing. So they are out to get him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point is that the Trump Party is trying to distract people from the crux of the investigation by bringing up all sorts of irrelevant issues, this being one.

But, but that would would be extremely dishonest and misleading

 

[Polymath257]

Recently I read a Yahoo News article, I can fetch it if anyone is interested, but I also don't want to go around posting random articles... but it appeared to state that the FBI may investigate the whistleblower. This is significant because if the whistleblower is determined to have done some shady business, it may send the impeachment process to a halt.

Why would it? The evidence we have has substantiated the initial report of the whisleblower. We don't need the whistelblower now that we have all the other witnesses.

 

[Polymath257]

When did this country become so corrupt that the investigation of corruption became illegal?

When will pointing out that there is rampant corruption become illegal?

When did it become so corrupt that a president asking a foreign country to announce an investigation into a political rival is considered acceptable?

 

[Watchmen]

Why would it? The evidence we have has substantiated the initial report of the whisleblower. We don't need the whistelblower now that we have all the other witnesses.

What was the initial report of the whistleblower?

What evidence substantiates the initial report?

 

[Shad]

Gordon Sondland Is about to testify before the impeachment inquiry in a few minutes. And he is going to say there was a quid pro quo.

He never said it was something he heard from Trump. Sondland was speculating. When he asked for direction from Trump Sondland say Trump said "no quid pro quo". Again no direct evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was the initial report of the whistleblower?

What evidence substantiates the initial report?

The whistleblower initially told of how Trump tried to start an illegal investigation of Biden.

The phone call transcript for one thing subtantiates the initial report.

 

[Nakosis]

Gordon Sondland Is about to testify before the impeachment inquiry in a few minutes. And he is going to say there was a quid pro quo.

So quid pro quo is not itself illegal. The Senate will have to decide if the circumstances make it a crime. Then if a crime, enough of a crime to impeach.

Personally I think we'd have been better served to have congress pass a resolution denouncing Trump's action as unethical.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

No, you have that wrong. The FBI wants to interview the whistleblower because they're concerned Bill Barr's DoJ didn't even look into potential counterintelligence issues stemming from the complaint.

FBI seeks interview with CIA whistleblower

"Some officials within the FBI, which received its own copy of the whistleblower’s complaint in early September, chafed at a Justice Department move they believed was aimed at shutting down any inquiry at all, especially into potential counterintelligence issues raised by the allegations, according to a former senior U.S intelligence official who has discussed the matter with current FBI counterintelligence agents."

My mistake.

I'm sorry.

 

[sealchan]

Gordon Sondland Is about to testify before the impeachment inquiry in a few minutes. And he is going to say there was a quid pro quo.

This is solid evidence that correlates with the rest of the witness testimony.

The argument that because Trump didn't say in one sentence or one paragraph that the aid is contingent on the investigations is weak at best and can be countered by the fact that when explicit discussions took place in the Trump administration (I believe in the two cases I recall both involved Sondland) they were shut down or directed to other unrecorded channels indicating a precise awareness that such direct quid pro quo language was to be suppressed.

There is no doubt here that bribery was used in an attempt to undermine a US election.

 

[sealchan]

Gordon Sondland Is about to testify before the impeachment inquiry in a few minutes. And he is going to say there was a quid pro quo.

And now he did say...

 

[ecco]

I would have said “bribery”, Bribery is by definition a “quid pro quo”, although not all quid pro quo’s are bribes. This was a bribe. Trump was using the funds guaranteed by Congress to get an announcement about an investigation into his political rival.

Personally I think the word "extortion" is the most appropriate.

Google "extortion vs bribe"
But the most important difference is the difference between a threat to do harm in extortion and an offer to do good in bribery​

The threatened harm was the withholding of military aid which would have led to the deaths of Ukrainians. To avoid the threatened harm, the President of Ukraine would have to publicly announce he was authorizing the opening of an investigation into Biden.

The plan went askew when it became public knowledge.