Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Pete, it’s not settled there was a quid pro quo.
if quid pro quo is wrong when used for personal benefit, is t it worth investigating what the biden’s did? you said where there’s smoke there’s fire. isnt there a meaningful amount of smoke suggesting the bidens were dipping their fingers in the ukrainian cookie jar?
I said days ago it's fine to investigate the Bidens in a legal and aboveboard manner.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Trumps claims to date
1. Fake News, smoke and mirrors
2. this is all overblown, the real transcript will prove there’s nothing there.
3. the whistleblower has no first-hand knowledge of any of this
4. but there was no explicit quid pro quo
Now we have evidence, from the president’s own Ukraine envoy, that there was an explicit quid pro quo and everybody knew about it.
Trump hasn't claimed there was none since yesterday.
Here is what comes next from Trumplicans, this will be more right than wrong.
The quid pro quo wasn’t real because only the U.S. knew it existed.
For a quid pro quo to be real, both sides must be party to it.
Maybe both sides knew about it, but it was never enforced.
Because the quid (withholding military aid) was illegal, then by definition it couldn’t have been an actual thing.
Maybe it was illegal and maybe both sides knew about it and maybe it was enforced, but executive authority allows all of this.
Maybe executive authority doesn’t actually allow any of this, but the impeachment process in the House was tainted, so whatever the Senate thinks of Trump’s actions, they’re duty-bound to acquit him because they have to think about future precedent.
And as far as the whining about the process, while 25% of the Republican house members are on the committees in the meetings is ridiculous.
The trial will be in the Senate, per the Constitution.
The House gets to decide how the process of deciding whether or not to impeach is done, per the Constitution.
If the issue is secrecy and leaks go back to Ken Starr's reign.