Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It wasn't Trump throwing Pence under the bus yesterday.  He brought him to heel.

 

or maybe Paul from prison reminded him why he hand picked him in the first place.

 

Edited by triplehorn
  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

That seems pretty damning. Contemporaneous evidence confirming the quid pro quo? 

Well, it was shot down in the next message by <notes> Trump megadonor who was nominated to his post by Trump.

Oh yeah, he then suggested they take the convo off text, which is totes norms when a group is discussing something legal.

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Daily reminder that quid pro quo doesn't even fucking matter.  

if you're going for treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, I think it does.

#1 is a statutory crime 

#2 is redirecting official U.S. policy for your personal gain, very akin to bribery. 

 

They may both be impeachable, but the latter is definitely impeachable.  

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

if you're going for treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, I think it does.

#1 is a statutory crime 

#2 is redirecting official U.S. policy for your personal gain, very akin to bribery. 

 

They may both be impeachable, but the latter is definitely impeachable.  

For sure, but it needs to be made clear that there is a crime even without a quid pro quo.  Both would be ideal.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

if you're going for treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, I think it does.

#1 is a statutory crime 

#2 is redirecting official U.S. policy for your personal gain, very akin to bribery. 

 

They may both be impeachable, but the latter is definitely impeachable.  

Public officials can be impeached for any reason, so I’m not sure what you mean by “impeachable.”

Edited by hpslugga
Posted
1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

Public officials can be impeached for any reason, so I’m not sure what you mean by “impeachable offense.”

people that deal with this use the same analytical tools to understand it as any other part of the law.  look at the history, look at the concurrent writings, look at "ejusdem generis", look at how it was applied with historically, read some charles black.  arguments and votes aren't going to be gut.

Posted
48 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Daily reminder that quid pro quo doesn't even fucking matter.  

daily reminder that the actual transcript is likely far worse.

what's out there is the summary memo the white house put together to try to put out the fire.

reasonable logic dictates that the full transcript might actually include the words "quid pro quo", "bribe", "extort", and "or else".

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, TexEx15 said:

not sure of the etiquette here.  Do we need multiple whistleblower posts? MAGA amirite.

Fuckin' Deep State swamp-dwellin' IRS traitors.

Posted

i haven't read the posted article ^^ but at this point, "the text" that was revealed today in the deposition seems like the biggest smoking gun so far re: the ukraine call.

if they're narrowing the focus to the call/relationship with the ukraine president, then "the text" is the biggest smoking gun thus far in the impeachment inquiry.

i mean, other than trump actually admitting to doing something impeachable out loud.  right?

Posted
8 hours ago, Eastwood said:

One thing I just can't wrap my brain around is how people who claim to be America first are okay with Trump inviting other nations to investigate American citizens, much less political rivals. I thought the attitude was that we keep that stuff "in the family" and investigate our own. We send the FBI into countries to investigate American citizens, not have the countries investigate on their own. But cool, subject American citizens to the foreign justice of possibly corrupt nations. Very America first of you.

It was never purely “America First.” There’s a fairly simple transitive element to all of this:

America first

Trump positions himself as America.

Trump first. 

 

Posted

I can't copy and paste from my phone... 

The last set of texts refers specifically to the president not expecting quid pro quo. 

Is this a CYA moment (after the article mentioned earlier), or something else? How do you read this (knowing that Trumpkins will point to it as proof that things were on the level and the Ukraine side misunderstood what was going on)? 

Posted
3 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

I can't copy and paste from my phone... 

The last set of texts refers specifically to the president not expecting quid pro quo. 

Is this a CYA moment (after the article mentioned earlier), or something else? How do you read this (knowing that Trumpkins will point to it as proof that things were on the level and the Ukraine side misunderstood what was going on)? 

It was clearly a CYA moment that people in my industry do all the time when they need to create favorable evidence.  I don't think you can do anything but explain that is what it is, and focus on everything else that show it was quid pro quo.  10 things implicitly and sort of explicitly mean QPQ.  1 thing explicitly says it wasn't.  Who are you going to believe?

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

I can't copy and paste from my phone... 

The last set of texts refers specifically to the president not expecting quid pro quo. 

Is this a CYA moment (after the article mentioned earlier), or something else? How do you read this (knowing that Trumpkins will point to it as proof that things were on the level and the Ukraine side misunderstood what was going on)? 

Found it... Looks like a CYA

 

Edited by NWBuck
Posted

GORDON SONDLAND, 8/9/19: “I think potus really wants the deliverable”

GORDON SONDLAND, 9/9/19: “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”

 

The time in between is when WH/DOJ learn about the Whistleblower.

  • Like 3
Posted
Just now, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It was clearly a CYA moment that people in my industry do all the time when they need to create favorable evidence.  I don't think you can do anything but explain that is what it is, and focus on everything else that show it was quid pro quo.  10 things implicitly and sort of explicitly mean QPQ.  1 thing explicitly says it wasn't.  Who are you going to believe?

You could do a lot in a deposition too, much of which was probably done today. Under any normal circumstances, these guys are fucked. I don't see a defense here. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

GORDON SONDLAND, 8/9/19: “I think potus really wants the deliverable”

GORDON SONDLAND, 9/9/19: “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”

 

The time in between is when WH/DOJ learn about the Whistleblower.

Live video of Sondland..........

 

 

  • Like 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Some in the press are already trying to push the story that Democrats aren't so sure they want to go through with this.

They have to impeach at this point, right?

Right???

some water carrier pumping fog.  Realizing that Democrats are rapidly starting to shred these shitbags must be pretty confusing for many.

Posted
9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Some in the press are already trying to push the story that Democrats aren't so sure they want to go through with this.

They have to impeach at this point, right?

Right???

After the release of these conversations - it's time for bed.

Posted

Other than just straight up lying to the public--I don't see how Republicans defend this. They had gone all in on "there was no quid pro quo" but contemporaneous evidence shows clearly there was. The President withheld military aide to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival, making clear the quid pro quo through official diplomatic channels. 

 

 

Posted
Just now, horncyclist said:

Other than just straight up lying to the public--I don't see how Republicans defend this. They had gone all in on "there was no quid pro quo" but contemporaneous evidence shows clearly there was. The President withheld military aide to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival, making clear the quid pro quo through official diplomatic channels. 

 

 

If I was Trump's counsel at the Senate I'd argue the facts on the first half and the law on the second:   quid pro quo hasn't been established, and the request to investigate alone isn't considered an impeachable offense under the Constitution. 



×
×
  • Create New...