You Want Impeachment? Find A Quid To Go With The Pro Quo

Loading

The transcript of the call from President Trump to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is enough to make Edwin Edwards blush. The infamous Louisiana governor once bragged, “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or live boy.”

Even after the July appearance of Robert Mueller before Congress to discuss his findings as the special counsel, Trump apparently felt no qualms about calling Zelensky the following day to press him about investigating his main political opponent, Joe Biden, and son Hunter Biden. It is breathtaking to read Trump trying to convince Zelensky to do him a “favor” by going after the Bidens and suggesting meetings with Attorney General William Barr and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.



Yet for those hoping to find a dead promise or a live Russian in the transcript, they will be disappointed again. The transcript lacks a critical element needed for impeachment, which is evidence of a quid pro quo. Trump never connects the investigation with the roughly $400 million in military aid. While he discusses the aid, he never suggests he will not send it. That does not mean a case for impeachment or criminal prosecution cannot be made. Unlike the prior impeachable offenses suggested by Democrats, this allegation of self-dealing could be both an impeachable offense and a federal crime, though neither would be easy to prove.

Past suggested impeachable offenses either have been facially ridiculous, like the comments Trump made about Charlottesville or his criticism of national anthem protest kneelers, or legally flawed, like the Russia intervention or obstruction theories. The closest viable claims are his payments to alleged former mistresses that are in the criminal plea agreement of his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

This is different. If a quid pro quo was proven, it would be self-dealing and an abuse of public office, and that can be a crime. Just ask disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. He was convicted after calling other political figures to leverage the appointment of a new United States senator, to replace the newly elected President Obama, for his own political gain. While some of us were highly critical of that prosecution, because politicians routinely use such decisions to their own benefit, Blagojevich was found guilty and his conviction was later upheld.

Yet such cases have a mixed record. Former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell was convicted of using his office to benefit a businessman who gave him and his wife various gifts. I was also critical of that prosecution, and it was later overturned by the Supreme Court. Then there was the prosecution of Senator Robert Menendez, who helped a wealthy doctor and donor with various government problems. The doctor in turn spent lavishly on Menendez, who actually pressured officials in cases benefiting the doctor, and helped him secure visas, yet Menendez was acquitted.

So what would Congress need to establish a strong case in light of this transcript? Some have argued that it does not matter if Trump never raised the military funding as leverage with Zelensky, but it does matter. There is nothing illegal in a president complaining about the lack of an investigation into corruption, even by a political opponent. The transcript does not show Trump demanding a political charge but an investigation.

The transcript has material that will help Trump, who has maintained that he held back the aid to try to get other countries to pony up in support of Ukraine. In the call, Trump tells Zelensky, “We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing, and they should be helping you more than they are.” He speaks at length about the need for those countries to contribute, and Zelensky agrees.

Trump further asks for access to a computer server and references Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity company related to the Russia hacking investigation. Former FBI director James Comey referenced Crowdstrike as one of the critical elements in the investigation, and that investigation is being reviewed by United States Attorney John Durham. A computer server and other information connected to the Russia hacking evidence would likely assist Durham in his investigation. The references to Barr in the transcript could be defended on that basis.

The quid may still be out there, but it will not be found in this transcript. The most obvious place to look is with witnesses who may have heard Trump make the linkage. The most intriguing of those possibilities would be former national security adviser John Bolton, who Trump recently fired and then maligned. Bolton reportedly was irate over the freezing of Ukrainian military aid, and he could have the knowledge and motivation to supply information. It also is reasonable for Congress to say that, with a half billion dollars on the table, it is hardly necessary to state the connection. Yet presidents often have such leverage over countries.

The references to Barr can be defended, but they are still a matter of legitimate concern for Congress. Trump repeatedly says he will have Giuliani and Barr call Zelensky, and Zelensky says a new prosecutor is set to look into the matter. Yet the problem for potential prosecution is that nothing came from those referrals. The Ukrainians never contacted Barr, and Barr never had anything to do with the Biden controversy. Barr was also unaware of the call and of Trump making references to him.

Trump is a recidivist in the law of attempt. He often proposes ridiculous actions, like firing a special counsel, but what follows is nothing. Advisers like Barr and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have become masters of listening to his tirades and then going about their business. The chances that Barr would work with Ukrainians to hunt down the Bidens is about as likely as Trump suggesting he would be a shoo in for the Nobel Peace Prize “for a lot of things” if the system was not rigged against him.

As shown by McDonnell and Menendez, these types of cases are difficult to prove, even when actions are taken. This would be an attempt to perform an act that is itself a controversial basis for a criminal charge. Zelensky says the Ukrainians were already looking at all such matters, and Barr was never told, let alone enlisted, to help out. It would be like the McDonnell case in which the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the governor took “official acts” in calling Virginia officials on behalf of the business except, in this instance, the calls to Barr never took place.

Absent a clear quid pro quo, a Senate impeachment trial could be a grotesque scene. The Trump team would certainly point out that the Obama administration directly used a secret court to investigate his political opponents on claims that were based in part on opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign. The trial would highlight the dubious money given to Hunter Biden by Chinese and Ukrainian interests while his father negotiated financial and political agreements.

While many in the media have chosen to focus on the narrow question of whether Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its corruption prosecutor to protect his son, there is a more important question of whether the family profiteered during his term in the White House. Few people believe the Chinese and Ukrainians searched the world for a financial or energy genius and came up with Hunter Biden.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
39 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Biden, on the other hand, brags about committing quid pro quo for political purposes…which is illegal.

All a circus to protect the lame duck candidate who can’t even win…according to public opinion polls.

It’s interesting, however evil, tactic the Dems have come to master: manufacture charges of a crime on your opponent just as they are revealing that yourself committed the crime.

Hillary colluded = Mueller Investigation
Biden threatened to hold aid in exchange for political favors = blame Trump of the same even the evidence clears him 100%

Do they work on a platform or cleaning up their own corruption? No….(except for Tulsi, who is genuine, honest, and might have my vote in 2024).

If this is allowed to stand, all criminals ought to “run for office.”
After all, the precedent this case would set confers immunity on all candidates, AND their “children,” no matter how old they are.

Add to that the “intelligence community” has turned the whistleblower policy into a gossipy version of Attack Watch!

What fun we all had with that.
Obama asked us to tell on people we’d “heard” anything bad about.
Of course he got loads of reports about his own homosexual history, his travel to Pakistan when it was illegal for Americans to, and other absurdities.
Now our CIA/FBI has lowered itself to that level for whistleblowing.
Not funny when it’s official gov’t business.

You Want Impeachment? Find A Quid To Go With The Pro Quo

It would make no difference Curt. None. No matter what this man does or fails to do, it will make no difference to his enablers.

None.

Want an impeachment get the house vote first. Nancy knows it might not pass with more moderate Democrats that campaigned on getting along and getting the house business done.

@Ronald J. Ward:

It would make no difference Curt. None. No matter what this man does or fails to do, it will make no difference to his enablers.

None.

You’ve got be getting paid to parrot that. No one is that stupid.

Meanwhile, nothing the Dems do seems to bother their enablers…like you.

The transcript lacks a critical element needed for impeachment, which is evidence of a quid pro quo. Trump never connects the investigation with the roughly $400 million in military aid.

But anyone of average intelligence who reads the transcript and knows about the withheld military aid understands that the connection was there.

People accustomed to unethical and/or unlawful propositions generally avoid making explicit statements. It’s far safer to let the party they’re talking to figure things out.

@Greg:

But anyone of average intelligence who reads the transcript and knows about the withheld military aid understands that the connection was there.

Really, Greggie Goebbels? Odd that the Ukrainians did not know that the military aid had been delayed but you did.

Just more of your propaganda that is ALWAYS wrong.

You’re an idiot.

@retire05, #9:

Odd that the Ukrainians did not know that the military aid had been delayed but you did.

Who says they didn’t know? Have you got a credible source, or are you just throwing out something somebody slipped into your brain while you were watching FOX News?

They undoubtedly knew that they hadn’t received the aid when Trump had his telephone call with Zelensky. Who knows what Rudy told them?

From The Military Times, September 29, 2019 – Trump claim on stalled aid for Ukraine draws new scrutiny

@Greg:

But anyone of average intelligence who reads the transcript and knows about the withheld military aid understands that the connection was there.

That’s just biased, partisan conjecture.

I’m sure you have a problem with Biden’s overt statement that he withheld aid to Ukraine, of course.

They undoubtedly knew that they hadn’t received the aid when Trump had his telephone call with Zelensky. Who knows what Rudy told them?

Too bad Zelensky said he didn’t feel forced, so the whole conversation about this is absurd and just a desperate hail-mary by your broken party.

@Greg:

Who says they didn’t know?

“Mr. Trump did not discuss the delay in the military assistance on the July 25 call with Mr. Zelensky, according to people familiar with the conversation. A Ukrainian official said Mr. Zelensky’s government did not learn of the delay until about one month after the call,” reported the NYSlimes.

Have you got a credible source,

Well, yes, the NYSlimes, a source that you seem to favor with some regularity? Now, is that “credible” enough for rotten pond scum such as yourself, Greggie Goebbels?

But let’s not forget how Senators Bob Menendez (crook), Dirty Dickie Durbin (crook) and Pat Leahey tried to pressure Ukraine back in 2018 over investigating Paul Manafort or how Congressman Chris Murphy proffered the quid pro quo to Ukrain that complying with requests to investigate Hunter Biden could have bad results for support for Ukraine by the Democrats. But there is no doubt that rotten pond scum like you have no problem with that.

They caught the Dems doing something shady…so the tactic is accuse the Reps of it instead.

Not working too well.

@Nathan Blue:

I’m sure you have a problem with Biden’s overt statement that he withheld aid to Ukraine, of course.

There is no equivalency.

@Greg:

There is no equivalency.

You’re absolutely right.

Biden admitted guilt. Trump is only being falsely accused in the face of clear exoneration to deflect from Biden’s guilt.

Biden isn’t the guy who’s likely to be impeached. He’s not the guy who has misused his powers of office to evade congressional oversight and investigation.

From FOX News, 09/29/2019 – Giuliani was not working alone in Biden Ukraine probe

Rudy Giuliani was not the only attorney trying to get damaging information on Joe Biden from Ukrainian officials, and President Trump’s decision to withhold aid from Ukraine this summer was made in spite of several federal agencies supporting the aid, Fox News’ Chris Wallace revealed on “Fox News Sunday.”

In addition to Giuliani, Washington, D.C., lawyers Joe DiGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing, worked alongside the former New York City mayor. According to a top U.S. official, the three attorneys were working “off the books” — not within the Trump administration — and only the president knows the details of their work.

“Fox News has learned that the Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council were “unanimous” in supporting the aid to Ukraine, and that Trump acted alone in withholding the aid over the summer.”

@Greg:

Biden isn’t the guy who’s likely to be impeached. He’s not the guy who has misused his powers of office to evade congressional oversight and investigation.

Neither has Trump.

Your party might want to find a viable candidate for 2020, because Biden is burnt.

@Nathan Blue, #16:

Democrats have several possibilities to choose from. Maybe republicans should consider whether their supporters also deserve to have a choice.

I find it very difficult to believe that they have all sworn blood oaths to follow their leader whatever he does, whatever he says, and wherever he leads them. Far too many prominent republicans are watching in silence for that to be the case.

@Greg:

Rudy Giuliani was not the only attorney trying to get damaging information on Joe Biden from Ukrainian officials

Why look just follow him around for confessions!
Dolt Biden is collateral damage, the big guys that spied on Trumps Campaign and broke laws trying to pull off a coup, they are the real target.

@Greg: Democrats have no possibilities to choose from, given this weak attempt to accuse Trump of doing what they are now getting caught having done…with the presence of hard evidence. The walls are closing in on Biden and the rest.

Your job is to muddy the waters because the evidence is so clear.

Republicans, and Democrats, have a responsibility to objectively look at the truth:

Biden scandal: affidavits, money trails, and proof of installing a Ukrainian prosecutor of choice.

Trump exoneration: a convenient “whistle-blower” with nothing, Schiff lying to Congress, on record, and a transcript that clears Trump.

The indictments on the Dems are coming. Not even your owned newscycle can stop it.

Democrats are notorious to toeing the line much more than Republicans, at least during the past two decades.

Try again.

@kitt:

Dolt Biden is collateral damage, the big guys that spied on Trumps Campaign and broke laws trying to pull off a coup, they are the real target.

Well said!

The insanely vocal news cycle, and paid propagandist Greg, are just like a cornered squid squirting ink to obscure things.

I think they should have thought about how Trump was going to respond when they engineered the Russia hoax. Now they are in real trouble…as they should be.

Soros was found in this, so of course the news outlets went nuclear.

Yeah, the Soros connection was mentioned in a Pravda article a few days back, which makes me wonder where some of the right’s false news originates. Hey, the writer says he predicted the Ukraine story four months ago. It’s not entirely clear whether the tail is wagging the dog or the dog is wagging its tail. Do people really believe Russian involvement ceased after 2016?

“The president of Ukraine now has many other problems to deal with. He has found himself between the upper and nether millstone – Trump and Biden. To add more fuel to the fire, Zelensky is deeply connected with the Soros team, specifically with those who manipulate the Democrats now. One can see that the relationship between the US administration and the Ukrainian leadership has been cooling down. I actually predicted it four months ago that the Ukrainian story would be in the center of this standoff. Trump is ready to take revenge for Manafort – not just because he likes Paul, but because he was the chief of his headquarters, and Trump was forced to replace him at the peak of the election campaign. It all came from Ukraine: they used incriminating evidence against Manafort to make problems for Trump. The President of the United States can not yet make the Ukrainians give him the materials to take advantage of the incriminating evidence against Biden. We know why: because Zelensky remains under their control.”

Signed affidavits and naked records of money exchanges and organizer involvements are not false news, they are verifiable and public record.. unlike the mass of hearsay that you and your party’s networks routinely eat crow about airing….

Soros was involved, and it’s not open to discussion. It’s fact.

The ink cloud isn’t going to obscure this one.

@Greg:

Hey, the writer says he predicted the Ukraine story four months ago.

Because the signed affidavits were made public six months ago, you idiot. Funny how your news agencies ignored it….because they are a wing of the Democrat Party.

I’d do more research before trying to speak on this.

Quid pro quo doesn’t have to be established. Simply soliciting “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a election is a violation of federal law.

§ 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

Federal laws are not suggestions. This is only one of several that Trump has broken.

@Greg: What value is there in investigating corruption in another country? Exposing the election meddling and assistance Hillary sought, bought and paid for from a former UK spy with Ukraine and Russian connections? Bidens confession before the CFR audience seems a bit more problematic than his plagiarism that tanked a previous run. The primaries arent over yet Biden hasnt been crowned the DNC candidate, he is just a corrupt oldperv, worn out politician with hair plugs , fake way too white caps and a problem child.
This set up staged impeachment thing is failing.

@Greg: I’m aware you have handpicked material to support your own fantasies…that push your wet dream of impeaching Trump without offense or legal process. The delusion is reaching hysterical heights, and we’re ready.

I love the Left-ist propaganda pieces “Here’s what you might be tempted to believe based on non-liberally-biased sources…and what you should believe…because we said so…” Lame.

@Greg: Trump has broken no laws. Biden and Obama on the other hand, well…

That’s what you fear. The truth.

Getting worked overtime to piss this much ink, eh? Your party and your handlers are desperate.

Wagons are closing in, indeed.

@Nathan Blue: Have you seen this? https://www.technology.org/2019/09/13/oumuamua-2-0-it-looks-like-theres-a-new.
I say we shoot the entire DNC at the thing and it just leaves finding no intelligent life.

@kitt, #26:

Biden didn’t “confess” to diddly squat. Biden was openly taking credit for accomplishing an openly declared U.S. foreign policy objective—the removal of a Ukrainian Prosecutor General who was problematic not because he was going after those deeply involved in corrupt practices, but because he was failing to do so.

@Nathan Blue:

That’s what the law says. I “cherry picked” the particular law that the occupant of the Oval Office has broken in this particular case, so you can add one more to the growing list. You might want to familiarize yourself with each of them, because they may soon be cited in Articles of Impeachment, followed by a presentation of all supporting evidence.

If that happens, Senate republicans can then stand in the spotlight and register their votes as to whether or not they give a damn that their man in the White House is a repeat law breaker, who asserts he is not only immune from prosecution and criminal investigation, but also above the reach of congressional oversight and constitutional balances of power. They’ll be frequently reminded of the positions they take right up to the 2020 elections—which may determine whether the rule of law and the republic the right is always blathering about lives or dies.

There’s nothing trivial about any of this. No hyperbole is involved and no games are being played. It’s what’s happening, right now, before our eyes. Either people can figure it out, or they can’t.

@Greg: Oh, I understand very well this is a last ditch effort on your party’s behalf to salvage what they’ve lost. The impeachment is a hoax, and meant to have other affects…beyond just hiding the corruption of the previous administration, which is coming to full light.

You’ve even showed the hand I already knew your party had: this isn’t about successfully impeaching the president, it’s about muddying the water to shunt away votes, get votes from misinformed,/ misled voters for the Democrats, and to set up the battle to take the Senate. It’s ALL a game being played.

This isn’t about Trump. I’d even be bold in saying your party has abandoned the idea of winning the 2020 election altogether, and is just trying to “contain” Trump in with the House and Senate. Pretty much what the Reps did to Obama, so I get it. But to do it with such an abandonment of evidence and rule of law? It’s going to cost you more than you know.

Either people can figure it out, or they can’t.

Uh huh. Guess you and yours will be around to either silence or guide those of us who can’t figure it out, eh?

Heard that before. Enjoy election night. Bring a box of tissues.

Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Konstantin Kilimnik, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, Alex van der Zwaan, Richard Pinedo, Sam Patten, Bijan Kian, Skim Alptekin… It was a corrupt campaign organization, followed by a corrupt administration. This has been business as usual all along. There are presently 30-some investigations involving Donald Trump—12 in Congress, 10 federal criminal investigations, and 8 state investigations. All of which are witch hunts?

@Greg:

All of which are witch hunts?

Yup.

And what’s more, any “success” made with these hoax investigations will never be accepted by the majority of Americans, because they morally, and legally, invalid.

@Greg: May Mueller and Weissman burn in hell for what they did to General Flynn. Manafort worked with the Podestas so he most likely is dirty. Pretty much, yes witchhunts.
Dirty cop Mueller and filthy slime Weissman those two need to be investigated way back. Use the same standards as they held PoppaD to, one memory slip and hi ho hi ho off to prison they go. Mueller didnt do anything during this witch hunt he didnt know the name of Hillarys dirt manufacturing lawfirm, dottering old crooked cop.

Did somebody say quid pro quo?

READ: Text messages between US diplomats and Ukrainians released by House Democrats

Scroll down to the text messages.

Clearly insider Bill Taylor was very uncomfortable about the quid pro quo proposition they were getting sucked into and directly said as much. Upon receipt, Gordon Sondland freaked out and responded with a carefully composed denial about Trump’s intentions, and then essentially said Taylor should shut up about it in written messages. (Because such messages don’t go away, and could be subpoenaed, which is exactly what just happened.) Read the last two messages at the bottom of Page 9:

9/9/19, 12:47:11 – Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to
withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

OOPS! Cat is out of bag! Must attempt damage control!

9/9/19, 5:19:35 – Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.

Right. I believe you are incorrect about what we both know to be the case. And for Pete’s sake, don’t be texting about it! Because texting creates a record, and we might be asked about it under oath…

Gordon Sondland is one of the Trump faithful, having donated over a million dollars to Trump’s inaugural fund in return for his current diplomatic appointment.

Bill Taylor is an experienced diplomat who as served during four different administrations. He’s probably in serious trouble and under suspicion of being a traitor and a spy.

I didn’t really expect any comments on post #35.

Apparently the text message exchange mentioned in post #35 is too radioactive to discuss.

@Greg:

I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.

IOW, quit pestering me and give Lisa Kenna a call if you have anything else to discuss.

@Greg: Link to a clean download I hate giving CNN clicks. I prefer to wait til they all are released not just buggy eyes cherry picks.
Dem propagandists love to omit exculpatory evidence.