Posted on 10/26/2019 11:53:11 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Opinion is not legally viable.
Has anyone read the Comments posted at the link?
I think we can safely say that readers of “The Hill” are relentlessly Leftist.
I read the first block of 30 comments.
Not even one tried to defend Trump.
Luskin is a Democrat and was a speech writer for Geraldine Ferraro.
Wasn’t it Bush who told us that if we went into Iraq we would be paid back through their oil revenues? How much of our costs did we get back? I sure would like to see some quid pro quo on that rotten deal.
Ah. I’ve always wondered who’s responsible for determining what a quid pro quo is. Now I know. It’s Sondland. Ehhhh, just one question, Chief. How did Sondland know it was Trump’s rivals who were engaging in corruption?
His testimony was I never said Quid Pro Quo. I said I read that somewhere..
A lawyer for the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland
Ok we can all go back to sleep now this idiot solved it all
What he thought is not relevant!
What he thought is not evidence!
TOTAL BS!
Its fourth rate hearsay. His opinion means absolutely nothing since he wasn’t a witness to the phone call.
His feelings aren’t about the facts but are about his state of mind and are completely irrelevant.
Whistleblower, indeed.
Read the Breitbart story
WSJ is Never Trump. Will write anything to destroy him
So, if you’re running for office (as a Democrat) you’re immune from investigation?
John is leaving The Hill, to run his own independent agency, IIRC.
A quid pro quo in prosecutorial terms is something given outside the deal that is part of the deal. A perfect example is if you work at the State department and you make a deal to sell to, say, Russia, 20 percent of the nation’s uranium reserve and coincidentally Russia gives you one hundred and forty million dollars, THAT is a quid pro quo. Conditions on the money by the giver is not a quid pro quo.
It’s 99.999% sure that “The Whistleblower” was Eric Ciaramella, who was on the NCS under McMaster.
But he was just a cog in a much larger operation to take out Trump via impeachment this time.
The Ukraine hoax was and still is a full espionage job by Schiff’s intel committee plus never-Trumpers and Obama holdovers.
This video explains it all in detail.
WhistleBlower: Ciaramella? - IPOT Presents - 10.23.19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VKzO7CnaEk
That's been the case for years. Not the "Never Trumpers" -- that's only been since 2016 -- but the leftist news overage. The WSJ and NYT both recruit from Columbia's J-school and if anything the WSJ's news slant is to the left of the NYT's.
It's only the opinion/editorial pages of the WSJ that slant to the libertarian/right.
The WSJ quote is, "A top U.S. diplomat told House committees last week that efforts by President Trump and his allies to press Kyiv to open investigations in exchange for a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president amounted to a quid pro quo, his lawyer said."
"Amounted to"?
We have The Hill's interpretation of the WSJ's interpretation of what "Mr. Sondland’s lawyer Robert Luskin said" that Sondland said.
I don't think anyone could get convicted of littering with a chain of evidence like that, but impeachment is a political, not a criminal process. Where are Horowitz, Durham and Barr?
“he thought”...this is evidence?
From one of many replies arguing that we do a disservice to our cause when we accept the premise that a quid pro quo amounts to an impeachable offense, this one from October 11:
I have been arguing here for some time that it is the wrong strategy to argue that there is (1) no quid pro quo or (2) no actual solicitation of “something of value” relating to the 2020 election.
That starts the argument at the fallback position, that there was no quid pro quo in the transcript of the conversation and no solicitation of information concerning Biden in exchange for the delivery or sale of armaments. The Democrats by these scattershot subpoenas are attempting to fill in those gaps with testimony. In this atmosphere, whatever hearsay testimony, conjecture, or outright lies they can introduce into the public consciousness simply means they win, especially do they win if one considers their limited goal.
The first line of defense is that there is no crime even with a quid pro quo even if the president wanted to benefit his campaign because he was lawfully acting in his constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed, including the laws against corruption in office committed by former vice presidents. Let’s start with the first line of defense before we go to fallback positions. If the Democrats can contrive, as they almost certainly will, some sort of fanciful connection between solicitation for investigation and the delivery of arms, the Republicans then must argue on the facts over which they might have no control or argue as I have here that there is no crime anyway. Do you think the media will let Republicans get away with arguing immunity after they have argued the merits based on facts? I for one doubt it.
American foreign policy is based on carrot and sticks, or quad pro quo...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.