It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama did a direct Quid Pro Quo with Putin CLEAR EVIDENCE

page: 1
28
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+9 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 08:52 AM
link   
It's clear this impeachment is a sham.

With Trump you have to depend on mixed motives and the mind reading of Schiff. With Obama, there's direct evidence of a Quid Pro Quo. Here's the video of Obama talking to Medvedev.



With Obama, we don't have to speculate or mind read. We know his motives. He wanted more space to help his re-election and in exchange, he wanted Putin to know he would be more flexible after his re-election.

THIS IS A DIRECT QUID PRO QUO!

Space in exchange for flexibility on things like Ukraine and missile defense.

If Putin was planning to push back hard on the United States but Medvedev comes in and says, I talked directly to Obama and he said he will be more flexible after the election, THIS IS RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION THAT WAS DIRECTLY SOLICITED BY OBAMA!

This space gave Obama room to say this in a debate:



This was one of the biggest moments in that debate! Obama could say this with confidence because of his Quid Pro Quo with Putin. He knew, Putin wasn't going to push back and do anything. This allowed him the space to accuse Republicans of wanting to start another cold war.

He knew, Putin wouldn't do anything that might hurt him after that statement. If Putin didn't give Obama space in exchange for flexibility, that could directly hurt his re-election campaign.

Obama also refused to give lethal aid to Ukraine because he didn't want to offend Russia. Liberals complain about a 48 day hold and 6 minute call when Ukraine has more than just pillows and M.R.E.'s because of Trump?

HYPOCRISY!!!
edit on 31-1-2020 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 09:15 AM
link   
It was fine then and it is now.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
at this point......
who cares what black nixon did?
his legacy is hot garbage
his coat tails couldn't beat a game show host



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Preface: didn't like Obama... Don't think Trump should be impeached.

A. That guy wasn't Putin he made a deal with.
B. Congress money wasn't leveraged, rather it was a gentleman's agreement for lip service.
C. It didn't involve the investigation of a political rival (though his admin appears guilty of this later).

While I think this definitely shows hypocrisy with how we discuss Russia. I don't think this is the same as what the allegations against Trump are.

Further more, you could flip the script and say what Trump is accused of doing is similar to what was done to him. While many could say "well Biden(s) look sketchy" (they do), DOJ and AGs are supposed to investigate... Not the executive arm.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Obama was the Left’s messiah.
In the eyes of the deranged cult, the messiah can do no wrong.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66
Obama was the Left’s messiah.
In the eyes of the deranged cult, the messiah can do no wrong.


Something something two Spidermans pointing at each other meme.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

So the AG and the DOJ are not a part of the Executive branch now?

When did that happen?




posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

You're correct. I worded that wrong.

I should have stuck to presidents shouldn't be the one spearheading (political) Investigations. There's a history of presidents getting their AG to look into things, like Teddy with anti trusts... But political Investigations, or those that could be construed as such looks bad IMO.

Obama's admin set a horrible precedent for that sort of behavior... Something I spoke out against as it happened. I'd speak out against it no matter the president, their political affiliation, or who it's aimed at.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Here's the video of Obama talking to Medvedev.


Apparently Obama was willing to possibly jeopardize national security for his own personal reelection...


What’s Behind President Obama’s Missile Defense Comments


During the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, President Obama, in an exchange with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, stated: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin] to give me space.” “This is my last election,” he continued. “After my election I have more flexibility.”

edit on 31-1-2020 by Infoshill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

You said:

A. That guy wasn't Putin he made a deal with.

Of course it was, this was the President of Russia and he said, I WILL TRANSMIT THIS TO VLADIMIR! Who do you think Vladimir is?

B. Congress money wasn't leveraged, rather it was a gentleman's agreement for lip service.

This is wrong. The House Managers said a Quid Pro Quo doesn't have to be about money but something of value. They say Zelensky wanted a White House meeting which is something of value to Zelensky even though Zelensky refuted this when he said, let's just meet in Poland. Obama got space(valuable) and Putin got flexibility(valuable). QUID PRO QUO!

C. It didn't involve the investigation of a political rival (though his admin appears guilty of this later).

A Quid Pro Quo doesn't require an investigation. It requires saying I need x and I will do y. I need space, so I will give you flexibility.

For instance, if a Judge said to a Professor, if you give my daughter an A, I will find your son whose on trial not guilty. That's a Quid Pro Quo but no investigation has to happen.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Star for a good response, and honestly a truthful one. I don't have much arguements to the validity of your last post.

My point is are these two comparable? Personally, I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, Obama had gross abuses of power I think everyone should remember, and in an ideal world be held account to.

Lip service quid pro quo, especially in campaigning is something almost every politician does. That doesn't make it right, but there are other aspects I think are bigger fish than this in regards to his admin.

Still don't think Trump should be removed though.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Infoshill



Apparently Obama was willing to possibly jeopardize national security for his own personal reelection...

well posted

thanks for that



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Lip service quid pro quo?

Asking Putin to give him space and interfere with U.S. elections is just lip service? Really???

This was big for Obama because it gave him the room to shape his foreign policy in a way that says Romney and the G.O.P. were stuck in the past and wanted to fight another cold war. He could say this with confidence because Putin was giving him space in exchange for flexibility.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Trump targeted a political opponent. It's different in that sense. No doubt quid pro quo happens amongst other presidents, but trump targeted a political rival.

The question I've heard is : Do we now want to set a precedent that it's okay to ask foreign countrys to target political rivals while withholding aid if the president believes there is corruption?


edit on 31-1-2020 by blueman12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66
Obama was the Left’s messiah.
In the eyes of the deranged cult, the messiah can do no wrong.


And then the spectrum turned :
Trump is the Right's messiah.
In the eyes of the deranged cult, the messiah can do no wrong.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: neoholographic

Trump targeted a political opponent. It's different in that sense. No doubt quid pro quo happens amongst other presidents, but trump targeted a political rival.

The question I've heard is : Do we now want to set a precedent that it's okay to ask foreign countrys to target political rivals while withholding aid if the president believes there is corruption?



He's targeting corruption. Biden isn't immune to being investigated because he's running for President. In fact, ABC , Politico and other left wing papers were writing about Joe and Hunter Biden.

Obama directly asked Russia to give him space which allowed him to shape his foreign policy against Romney.

CLEAR QUID PRO QUO! I though Liberals said Russia an Putin are evil? It's okay for king Obama to ask Putin to interfere in his re-election? REALLY????
edit on 31-1-2020 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12

originally posted by: RazorV66
Obama was the Left’s messiah.
In the eyes of the deranged cult, the messiah can do no wrong.


And then the spectrum turned :
Trump is the Right's messiah.
In the eyes of the deranged cult, the messiah can do no wrong.



Cry me a river liberals...
Shocking that Chuck Schumer didn’t get misty today when trump won again...

I’m getting sick of winning...just kidding, it never gets old

It’s like a cowboys super bowl every day since the 2016 thrashing of y’alls queen...

Your national convention is going to be an absolute debacle...and I’ll have my popcorn ready when your lawless, violent socialist sect turns on other campaigns...

Y’all stoked the fires of anarchical, rebellious sensibilities and now the snake will eat itself...




edit on 31-1-2020 by Christosterone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66
Obama was the Left’s messiah.
In the eyes of the deranged cult, the messiah can do no wrong.


He had a 70% approval rating when he was done. Lots of people who voted for him did not like him in the long run. That's too bad you are oblivious to this obvious reality. The right side will never give constructive criticism to their politicians. A senator from Mississippi said she would attend a public hanging in 2018, the right thought it was funny, accused the left of being racist and kept her in office.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12

originally posted by: RazorV66
Obama was the Left’s messiah.
In the eyes of the deranged cult, the messiah can do no wrong.


And then the spectrum turned :
Trump is the Right's messiah.
In the eyes of the deranged cult, the messiah can do no wrong.


lol
I voted for him because he was not hillary
next time i will vote for him because of what the dems have tried to do to him for 3 years

he is a jackass
but the dems are far worse imo



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: neoholographic

Trump targeted a political opponent. It's different in that sense. No doubt quid pro quo happens amongst other presidents, but trump targeted a political rival.

The question I've heard is : Do we now want to set a precedent that it's okay to ask foreign countrys to target political rivals while withholding aid if the president believes there is corruption?



Did he though? Biden wasn’t running for President at the time and it looks like he he’s going to lose the nomination to Bernie unless they screw him again.
But even so.....
So does running for office give you immunity?
Seems like an awfully big loophole.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<<   2 >>

log in

join