• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

idav

idav

Being
Premium Member
Shad said:
Nope as Sondland only has his opinion. In his revised testimony he asked Trump for direction and was told no quid pro quo. Sondland has his opinion and it was wrong. Nothing from Trump himself.



Wrong. Trump told Sondland no quid pro quo by Sondland's revised testimony. Try again.






Assertion
Click to expand...
It's very interesting. Hey go do me a some crazy favor, don't worry it's not quid pro quo, lol. Just even mentioning it meant it was shady.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Shad said:
Nope as Sondland only has his opinion. In his revised testimony he asked Trump for direction and was told no quid pro quo. Sondland has his opinion and it was wrong. Nothing from Trump himself.



Wrong. Trump told Sondland no quid pro quo by Sondland's revised testimony. Try again.






Assertion
Click to expand...
Did you see the date of the call? Pretty much after he was caught. Yes, Trump told Sondland no quid pro quo on the same day that the whistleblowers report was brought up to the House intelligence committee. The phone call records had already been squirrelled away. It seems like Trump knew that something was about to hit the fan.
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
cladking said:
Then it would seem you must support the hostile take over of the country and Congress by the military industrial complex. It is a fait accompli anyway so we should all wave our banners and cheer.
Click to expand...
Well, there's a ridiculous non-sequitur if I ever read one.

Your position is that the president is allowed to use his power, and national resources and diplomacy, to further his own personal gains. Right?
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
idav said:
It's very interesting. Hey go do me a some crazy favor, don't worry it's not quid pro quo, lol. Just even mentioning it meant it was shady.
Click to expand...

Quid pro quo isn't illegal.

There was no deal made. Try again.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
Salvador said:
Hillary Clinton's election campaign likely received financial support from the Biden family
Click to expand...
Do you really think starting a comment with something that, even in your opinion, was "likely" is compelling?


Salvador said:
where Hunter Biden obtained millions of dollars from the corrupt Ukrainian energy company Burisma who has been funded by the formerly corrupt Ukrainian government whom the U.S government financial assisted when Joe Biden was Vice President; Ukraine in this round about way might have meddled in the U.S. Presidential election, which should be rightfully investigated by Ukraine. Hence, our P.O.T.U.S. Donald J. Trump had every right to kindly ask the Ukrainian President to investigate possible Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. The corrupt entities here might actually be Ukraine and possibly Mr. Hunter Biden along with his father Joe Biden.
Click to expand...

might have
might actually be

Also not very compelling.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
Watchmen said:
And I’m an independent. I vote for the best candidate, regardless of party. Always have. Always will.
Click to expand...


Someday, perhaps, the god's be willing, you will learn that people who are Republican politicians are very different from people who are Democratic politicians.

However, since this current kerfuffle hasn't convinced you of that, I doubt anything will.



Are you also religiously agnostic?
 
Salvador

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
ecco said:
Do you really think starting a comment with something that, even in your opinion, was "likely" is compelling?


might have
might actually be

Also not very compelling.
Click to expand...

That's why any probable Biden-Ukrainian corruption rightfully should be investigated.
 
Watchmen

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
A politician cannot ask for an illegal investigation of a political rival. It is rather amazing that you do not realize this. That is why Republicans on his staff reacted to this.

Just a reminder, not all Republicans are boot licking immoral lackeys.

And what personal attacks? Helpful advice is not an attack.

Your claims about your supposed politics is belief by your unquestioned support for one of the worst Presidents in the history of the U.S.. Please watch the hypocrisy on personal attacks.

Here this might help you understand the transcript that you did not understand:

Trump-Ukraine controversy: With or without quid pro quo, it was wrong

And as we have heard from various witnesses, there was a quid pro quo despite Trump's denials. What Trump did was wrong and illegal. The only valid question is whether it rose to the severity of being worthy of impeachment.
Click to expand...
Your jumping to “illegal request.” What made it illegal?

Ukraine received the aid.

There was no investigation.

So apparently there was no actually quid pro quo.

I’m asking totally legitimate questions and you’re making the assumption I have “unquestioned support” for Trump. I guess you’re the master of wrong assumptions as evidenced by you making a lot of assumptions from the transcript that are incorrect.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Watchmen said:
Your jumping to “illegal request.” What made it illegal?

Ukraine received the aid.

There was no investigation.

So apparently there was no actually quid pro quo.

I’m asking totally legitimate questions and you’re making the assumption I have “unquestioned support” for Trump. I guess you’re the master of wrong assumptions as evidenced by you making a lot of assumptions from the transcript that are incorrect.
Click to expand...
Simple. a person in office cannot abuse his office to create a bogus investigation of a rival. Especially asking a foreign government to do so. And we are in the middle of an investigation. Trump's ambassador to the European union, Sondland, testified that there was a quid pro quo. I thought that you claimed to be following this. Reading Britebart is not following the impeachment investigation.
 
idav

idav

Being
Premium Member
Watchmen said:
Your jumping to “illegal request.” What made it illegal?

Ukraine received the aid.

There was no investigation.

So apparently there was no actually quid pro quo.

I’m asking totally legitimate questions and you’re making the assumption I have “unquestioned support” for Trump. I guess you’re the master of wrong assumptions as evidenced by you making a lot of assumptions from the transcript that are incorrect.
Click to expand...
There are many Constitutional reasons that the call got people immediately investigating. This Trump Ukraine scenario could easily be a definition of what the writers were after.
The Founders Would Have Impeached Trump for His Ukraine-Related Misconduct - Center for American Progress
 
Watchmen

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
Simple. a person in office cannot abuse his office to create a bogus investigation of a rival. Especially asking a foreign government to do so. And we are in the middle of an investigation. Trump's ambassador to the European union, Sondland, testified that there was a quid pro quo. I thought that you claimed to be following this. Reading Britebart is not following the impeachment investigation.
Click to expand...
The testimony was hearsay and speculation. So much so that Dems changed their talking points from quid pro quo to bribery, yet there was no evidence of bribery. The word wasn’t even used in thousands of pages of testimony.

What’s Britebart? I’ve heard it in passing, but never read it myself. Another false assumption on your part.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Watchmen said:
The testimony was hearsay and speculation. So much so that Dems changed their talking points from quid pro quo to bribery, yet there was no evidence of bribery. The word wasn’t even used in thousands of pages of testimony.

What’s Britebart? I’ve heard it in passing, but never read it myself. Another false assumption on your part.
Click to expand...
No, you are confused. It was the whistleblower that had hearsay. And that is allowable. Investigations are often started on hearsay. The hearsay itself is not evidence, but what you hear in the testimony is not hearsay.

And why would it matter if they specifically named the crime that they were committing? Are you watching too many B-movies. Criminals do not do that. Sondland testified on what he heard Trump say. Now the words "hear" and "say" may be in there, but that is not what "hearsay" is.
 
Watchmen

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, you are confused. It was the whistleblower that had hearsay. And that is allowable. Investigations are often started on hearsay. The hearsay itself is not evidence, but what you hear in the testimony is not hearsay.

And why would it matter if they specifically named the crime that they were committing? Are you watching too many B-movies. Criminals do not do that. Sondland testified on what he heard Trump say. Now the words "hear" and "say" may be in there, but that is not what "hearsay" is.
Click to expand...
No. I’m not confused at all. I know the rule against hearsay, what is non-hearsay, and exceptions to the hearsay rule very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top