Transcript released - WH - No quid pro quo

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

You and I have the same extensive legal background.

Good! We got that argument out of the way.

However to put it clearly what you're arguing isn't a crime because of semantics. When the president is extorting a foreign official, anyone who enables that extortion on behalf of the president (Guliani) is also committing a crime.

That is true, but you assume extortion. There is no proof of extortion. There is only an insinuation on your part that I find difficult to see.

It is common for more than one subject to be breached within a single phone call, and those multiple subjects need not be related. The Ukrainian President indicates his own desire to have investigations into allegations of corruption in previous administrations. At one point, they discuss a female ambassador who has been replaced as someone who opposed the new administration's goals because of allegiance to the old administration. That sounds eerily familiar to what Trump has experienced.

There is no extortion when both parties agree to cooperate. Extortion implies that one party is exercising unwanted control over the other. There is simply no indication of that in this transcript. Without that premise, your legal argument falls apart.

TheRedneck

This seems much simpler to me than you're describing. If a mobster shows up at a shop, and says, "I need you to not sell your wares to those Biden fellers, because I think they're bad guys, criminals probably, and it's a really nice shop you've got here, and it would be a tragedy if I couldn't send you that money you've been promised by us to fix the place up, etc..." and then the shopkeeper says, "hehe, of course Mr. Mob-bossman, I was already not going to sell it to them, what a coincidence, haha" just as equally implies coercion as acquiescence or cooperation.

Just like my lawyer fiend said in the link I provided earlier, despite the fact that the Mobster never explicitly said "do this or I will burn your shop down" is inconsequential as its the meaning behind the words rather than the words themselves.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Soros Color Revolution ? Ukraine was Orange or was Russia?

IIRC The reason the Ukraine Gubmint was ousted was simply due to the fact that it was friendly with Russia and resisting western pressure to move towards EU and possibly joining NATO and put more pressure on Russia?

seems so long ago so I may have some info wrong, just pulling from my already foggy memory

a reply to: Wayfarer
is "the meaning" capable of being translated into another language for those whom English is a second language?
since it is not as plain as the nose on your face?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
is "the meaning" capable of being translated into another language for those whom English is a second language?
since it is not as plain as the nose on your face?

I think if this were one instance your argument above would be quite good. The fact that you are the first one to bring it up speaks well of your keen thinking.

Word on the street though is this is one of several, and is the least damning, so I suspect that angle of defense becomes harder to leverage if there are more examples of the arrangement being presented to the Ukranian PM.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

My main take away this morning was that there is/was an ongoing US investigation into Russia Gate, and that the impression exists a lot of it started in the Ukraine.

No wonder the Dems got so motivated so fast.


I still think exposing the sort of corruption exemplified by the Biden video would haunt both sides of the aisle. It's why so many establishment critters on both sides are getting antsy about impeachment. Have to keep "business as usual" going. Can't let the spotlight shine on the corruption, or who knows who'd be next

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gorgonite

By all means, explain under what circumstances Trumps personal attorney should be involved in ”chief law enforcement officer of one country having a conversation with his counterpart in another country about possible crimes and corruption.”. Please explain what legitimate reason Rudy has to be involved in that conversation?

Maybe because Guilliani has relevant information which would be of use to the Ukrainian President? That is what Trump said in the transcript.

Hint: some of us read it. That was the first thing I did when I heard it had been released.

TheRedneck

Rudy in his segment with Ingrahm said:
Do you think I've released all my info on Biden? Do you think I'm stupid and I can't prove these allegations?

I'm pretty sure Rudy has the goods necessary to close the case. He even went on about China and the 1.5 B to Hunter's Hedge Fund.

Ukaraine is just the tip of the iceberg. Watch.

I saw that, Laura couldn't get Rudi to shut up and she tried.

a reply to: JacKatMtn

I believe NATO was the bigger concern for Russia. Russia really played their cards right with the annexation of Crimea, they guaranteed the Black Sea naval base for good, and their annexation and conflict on the eastern border made it so that Ukraine cannot join NATO under the current guidelines since they are in the midst of a territorial dispute.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Crimea would still be in Ukraine had the Soros' Color revolutionaries not overthrown the elected gov't...

So that makes sense why Putin responded as swiftly as they did in Crimea..

Let me guess, the implications will be JUUUUUST vague enough to where both sides will point at this or that in the transcript as "evidence" for their argument and not budge an inch. Par for the course.

Same song, different tune. Those in power really know how to string people along. They've crafted a masterful narrative that has had people at each other's necks for years, all over stuff that they're not even involved in directly!

Man they're good at psychological warfare.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Word on the street though is this is one of several, and is the least damning, so I suspect that angle of defense becomes harder to leverage if there are more examples of the arrangement being presented to the Ukranian PM.

please by all means present them.....
do they also require English being your first language?
or is this one of those things you learn through experience, cause you know the Ukrainian president is newly elected and all.....

a reply to: Wayfarer

I just saw Adam Shiff try the same argument.

But the very reason the mob uses such language is that it makes proof of allegations much harder. One could, yes, look at the conversation that way, but one could also look at it as innocent. As long as there is a reasonable doubt of guilt, the USA says there is no crime.

So we're back to the question of guilty until proven innocent.

Now, if you can show me a pattern, or a corroboration, or really anything other than a single transcript that supports the theory that this was an insinuation, then I'll reconsider in light of the new evidence. But from one transcript? Nope, not enough... not nearly enough. Not even enough to entertain the thought, especially when those pushing it are denying open admissions of identical actions from one of their own.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Agit8dChop

It sure looks like quid pro quo.

Trump had no understanding of the limitations of the office. He thought being president meant freedom to be lawless.

I sure hope Trump doesn't get impeached. I still prefer Trump over Pence.

DFNJ once again proving not only does he not have any common sense, he apparently cannot read either.

a reply to: TheRedneck

One could, yes, look at the conversation that way, but one could also look at it as innocent.

Which is exactly the point. Those in power give each side JUUUST enough ammo to keep the back and forth going.

Round and round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows! The psyop keeps rolling along full steam ahead. 🤣

They'll continue yanking people's chains for as long as it serves their agenda. The sunk cost fallacy will keep people from admitting to themselves that the establishment has been/is stringing them along for a ride. They've invested too much emotional energy to admit to themselves that they're being played.

a reply to: TheRedneck

all of that from a rumor told by a 3rd party? Man, the DNC must have some serious Magic 8 Ball mojo.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

Word on the street though is this is one of several, and is the least damning, so I suspect that angle of defense becomes harder to leverage if there are more examples of the arrangement being presented to the Ukranian PM.

please by all means present them.....
do they also require English being your first language?
or is this one of those things you learn through experience, cause you know the Ukrainian president is newly elected and all.....

Who knows. Trump didn't want them released, then decided to release the one he did (presumably because its the least damning). I'd imagine we're not going to see any other transcripts or if we do long after the relevant house committee does.

The democrats motto. . . .

"Fire!. . . . . . . . Ready. . . . . Aim. . . . . "

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer



Now, if you can show me a pattern, or a corroboration, or really anything other than a single transcript that supports the theory that this was an insinuation, then I'll reconsider in light of the new evidence. But from one transcript? Nope, not enough... not nearly enough. Not even enough to entertain the thought, especially when those pushing it are denying open admissions of identical actions from one of their own.

TheRedneck

As I was mentioning to Shooterbrody, there seems to be at least another transcript, if not a couple, that are still unreleased. Perhaps at some point in the future you and I will get to view those to make a determination further.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Or some serious fear,,,

TheRedneck

a reply to: Wayfarer
if he committed a crime then by all means prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law;
the transcript released does not show that imo

you know the whole "high crimes and misdemeanors" thing

also is the the new normal for all potus going forward?
releasing their conversations with other foreign leaders? or is this just a requirement for trump?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
also is the the new normal for all potus going forward?
releasing their conversations with other foreign leaders? or is this just a requirement for trump?

Presumably just when a whistleblower 'blows a whistle'.