agsfan said:

---

Quote:

---

Ambassador Taylor wrote: "Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until President Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation." My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland's proposal to Mr. Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor generalnot President Zelenskywould commit to pursue the Burisma investigation.

---

---

OK. But the aid was sent. And the two people ON THE CALL say there was no Quid Pro Quo.

Wow. I knew they would try to impeach Trump for something. They have been saying they would since Day 1. But I thought they would have been able to come up with something more than this.

EVERY POTUS will be impeached moving forward of this is the bar set ...

MetoliusAg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Should we give military aid to countries who don't provide aid for criminal investigations? Is it illegal for a Republican administration to investigate a Democrat? How about a Dem investigating a Republican?

---

Unfortunately for Trump, Mulvaney, and Giuliani, it is illegal -- and also a serious violation of the oath of office and an abuse of power of the Presidency -- for a President to use $350M in U.S. foreign aid money to bribe or extort a foreign country to investigate and smear the President's chief political opponent and interfere in upcoming U.S. Presidential elections.

---

OK. But the aid was sent. And the two people ON THE CALL say there was no Quid Pro Quo.

Wow. I knew they would try to impeach Trump for something. They have been saying they would since Day 1. But I thought they would have been able to come up with something more than this.

EVERY POTUS will be impeached moving forward of this is the bar set ...

aginlakeway said:

---

agsfan said:

---

So he did back up what Bill Taylor said. Security money would come with Burisma investigation.

---

OK. So money was not sent then?

---

It shouldn't be necessary to point out the obvious to you, but since you insist:

-- the writers of the Constitution considered attempted bribery/extortion just as serious of a crime and violation of a govmt official's oath of office as the successful consumation of the crime

Hillary, Obama, and the Dems seem to have established foreign interference in US elections is perfectly OK as long as Russians aren't involved, because they all engaged other nations to interfere in our elections in various ways.

That said, the president didn't ask for election interference, did not specify a time, did not specify a desired outcome or finding, did not ask Ukraine to send information over. He asked them to conduct their investigation.

Hardball politics may appear ugly, and it is, but you need to violate a statute to commit a crime.

We still have no idea if there was any criminal action, or if nothing will turn up. The Dems desperately need to spin something into a crime for their "2020 impeachment as a campaign" strategy.

Quote:

---

EVERY POTUS will be impeached moving forward of this is the bar set ...

---

First order of business when the gavel is passed to a different party than that of POTUS will be to open formal impeachment proceedings, just in case they decide to conduct endless and intrusive investigations, you know, out of an abundance of caution. Severely restrict the use of Executive Privilege and the ability of a President to hire and retain advisors in the face of endless subpoenas and personal legal expenses in the millions and millions of dollars.

Comey's Dem lawyer friends didn't name their blog "LawFare" for no reason. <sigh> There are so few professionals left within the law profession these days.

Bribery? How, exactly?

Extortion? How, exactly?

You are using these terms extremely loosely in a literary sense, and not in a legal sense.

MetoliusAg said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

agsfan said:

---

So he did back up what Bill Taylor said. Security money would come with Burisma investigation.

---

OK. So money was not sent then?

---

It shouldn't be necessary to point out the obvious to you, but since you insist:

-- the writers of the Constitution considered attempted bribery/extortion just as serious of a crime and violation of a govmt official's oath of office as the successful consumation of the crime

---

The Dems stated from Day 1 that they WERE going to impeach Trump. You know that.

If this is how they choose to justify doing that, then fine. Just do it. And then it dies in the Senate. And Trump will be YOUR POTUS for another 5 years.

Done with you. You've been banned before for good reasons.

MetoliusAg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Should we give military aid to countries who don't provide aid for criminal investigations? Is it illegal for a Republican administration to investigate a Democrat? How about a Dem investigating a Republican?

---

Unfortunately for Trump, Mulvaney, and Giuliani, it is illegal -- and also a serious violation of the oath of office and an abuse of power of the Presidency -- for a President to use $350M in U.S. foreign aid money to bribe or extort a foreign country to investigate and smear the President's chief political opponent and interfere in upcoming U.S. Presidential elections.

---

Nope, opening investigations isn't illegal. Working with foreign governments isn't illegal. Pressuring them to comply with investigations isn't illegal.

"Abuse of power"
"Violating oath of office"

Can you please start listing actual laws broken instead of made up crimes?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Hillary, Obama, and the Dems seem to have established foreign interference in US elections is perfectly OK as long as Russians aren't involved, because they all engaged other nations to interfere in our elections in various ways.

That said, the president didn't ask for election interference, did not specify a time, did not specify a desired outcome or finding, did not ask Ukraine to send information over. He asked them to conduct their investigation.

Hardball politics may appear ugly, and it is, but you need to violate a statute to commit a crime.

We still have no idea if there was any criminal action, or if nothing will turn up. The Dems desperately need to spin something into a crime for their "2020 impeachment as a campaign" strategy.

---

Yet some TexAgs posters know for sure ...

Strange.

MetoliusAg said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

agsfan said:

---

So he did back up what Bill Taylor said. Security money would come with Burisma investigation.

---

OK. So money was not sent then?

---

It shouldn't be necessary to point out the obvious to you, but since you insist:

-- the writers of the Constitution considered attempted bribery/extortion just as serious of a crime and violation of a govmt official's oath of office as the successful consumation of the crime

---

Investigation led by the DOJ isn't a bribe. Especially when that is an investigation into possible bribes directed at the previous Vice President.

Glad you agree this investigation has proper predication.

Quote:

---

the writers of the Constitution considered attempted bribery/extortion just as serious of a crime and violation of a govmt official's oath of office as the successful consumation of the crime

---

Attempted? Are you kidding here? Thought crime? Or an entrapment gone wrong?

Go back and look at the tapes of Abscam. And how long that took. The Congressmen who actually took the money were the ones who were actually prosecuted. For a reason.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

the writers of the Constitution considered attempted bribery/extortion just as serious of a crime and violation of a govmt official's oath of office as the successful consumation of the crime

---

Attempted? Are you kidding here? Thought crime? Or an entrapment gone wrong?

Go back and look at the tapes of Abscam. And how long that took. The Congressmen who actually took the money were the ones who were actually prosecuted. For a reason.

---

He won't reply to this one ...

MetoliusAg said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

agsfan said:

---

So he did back up what Bill Taylor said. Security money would come with Burisma investigation.

---

OK. So money was not sent then?

---

It shouldn't be necessary to point out the obvious to you, but since you insist:

-- the writers of the Constitution considered attempted bribery/extortion just as serious of a crime and violation of a govmt official's oath of office as the successful consumation of the crime

---

They also believed in the right to bear arms. So save me your newfound care of the constitution.

Frankly, I have no idea how the children or close relatives of national level political figures that do international business dodge FCPA violations because they are very very easy to walk into.

MetoliusAg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Should we give military aid to countries who don't provide aid for criminal investigations? Is it illegal for a Republican administration to investigate a Democrat? How about a Dem investigating a Republican?

---

Unfortunately for Trump, Mulvaney, and Giuliani, it is illegal -- and also a serious violation of the oath of office and an abuse of power of the Presidency -- for a President to use $350M in U.S. foreign aid money to bribe or extort a foreign country to investigate and smear the President's chief political opponent and interfere in upcoming U.S. Presidential elections.

---

I think I understand the problem. You are reading Favreau's narratives and adopting his wording to help yourself understand the situation.

I hate to break this to you bud.

Elf was not a story that really happened. As amazing as it would be if it did.

Iron Man is not history. Yes, there are billionaire playboys that inherit daddy's business and make them even bigger. Yes, there are defense contractors that make amazing technology for the U.S. Government. But Iron Man and the fun movie story is not a documentary.

Swingers? There may have been some true aspects with this one.

But again the ability to take bits and pieces of true things and weave an incredible tale that will entertain people is not an ability we should be using to overturn elections.

I hope I have helped you in some small way.

hbtheduce said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Should we give military aid to countries who don't provide aid for criminal investigations? Is it illegal for a Republican administration to investigate a Democrat? How about a Dem investigating a Republican?

---

Unfortunately for Trump, Mulvaney, and Giuliani, it is illegal -- and also a serious violation of the oath of office and an abuse of power of the Presidency -- for a President to use $350M in U.S. foreign aid money to bribe or extort a foreign country to investigate and smear the President's chief political opponent and interfere in upcoming U.S. Presidential elections.

---

Nope, opening investigations isn't illegal. Working with foreign governments isn't illegal. Pressuring them to comply with investigations isn't illegal.

"Abuse of power"
"Violating oath of office"

Can you please start listing actual laws broken instead of made up crimes?

---

As I pointed out earlier today:

Quote:

---

Two weeks ago, Trump was still falsely claiming "There was no quid pro quo!", and his supporters and the RWM dutifully echoed his claim.

But after two more weeks of sworn testimony from witnesses, Trump and the RWM and Trump supporters can no longer credibly claim Trump, Giuliani, and Mulvaney weren't involved in a quid pro quo scheme. Today, Tim Morrison drove another stake thru the heart of that false Trump claim.

---

Nailed it. And:

Quote:

---

The new hill for Trump supporters to defend is: "Okay, we admit Trump, Mulvaney, & Giuliani held back the $350M and attempted to use it to pressure Ukraine into a quid pro quo to investigate Biden, but it wasn't wrong or illegal."

---

And right on schedule, here y'all are, claiming:

-- it wasn't a serious violation of the oath of office

-- it wasn't an abuse of Presidential power

-- it wasn't illegal.

Going to blow up in your face just like **** Ford and Mueller. When it does you will go with everyone is racist and try a new username. It's your shtick and I am glad you keep it up. This place would be boring without you.

It's not illegal

Met is Wylie Coyote.

They all blow up in his face. He just changes the subject (or his user name)

MetoliusAg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Should we give military aid to countries who don't provide aid for criminal investigations? Is it illegal for a Republican administration to investigate a Democrat? How about a Dem investigating a Republican?

---

Unfortunately for Trump, Mulvaney, and Giuliani, it is illegal -- and also a serious violation of the oath of office and an abuse of power of the Presidency -- for a President to use $350M in U.S. foreign aid money to bribe or extort a foreign country to investigate and smear the President's chief political opponent and interfere in upcoming U.S. Presidential elections.

---

Nope, opening investigations isn't illegal. Working with foreign governments isn't illegal. Pressuring them to comply with investigations isn't illegal.

"Abuse of power"
"Violating oath of office"

Can you please start listing actual laws broken instead of made up crimes?

---

As I pointed out earlier today:

Quote:

---

Two weeks ago, Trump was still falsely claiming "There was no quid pro quo!", and his supporters and the RWM dutifully echoed his claim.

But after two more weeks of sworn testimony from witnesses, Trump and the RWM and Trump supporters can no longer credibly claim Trump, Giuliani, and Mulvaney weren't involved in a quid pro quo scheme. Today, Tim Morrison drove another stake thru the heart of that false Trump claim.

---

Nailed it. And:

Quote:

---

The new hill for Trump supporters to defend is: "Okay, we admit Trump, Mulvaney, & Giuliani held back the $350M and attempted to use it to pressure Ukraine into a quid pro quo to investigate Biden, but it wasn't wrong or illegal."

---

And right on schedule, here y'all are, claiming:

-- it wasn't a serious violation of the oath of office

-- it wasn't an abuse of Presidential power

-- it wasn't illegal.

---

I've been posting this for weeks bud. You have been the one confused for weeks as if "Quid pro quo" was all you needed to prove. You have to prove this is a crime.

"Quid pro quo" isn't a crime
"abuse of power" isn't a crime

Its not a crime, because the "thing of value" Trump would receive is an investigation into possible bribery and extortion performed by the previous Vice President, and an investigation started on fabricated evidence that claimed he was a Russian asset. Those are in the public interest and is within the legal powers of the president of the united states. It doesn't matter that it helps Trump in reelection. Because EVERY action he takes supposedly helps his reelection.



For Proof

Quote:

---

hbtheduce
In reply to leftcoastaggie 2:59p, 10/23/19

AG

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

+ 3 more quotes (click to expand)

---

FireAg said:
Something of substance please...I don't care about things that don't mean **** to me or affect my life as a citizen or taxpayer...

---

leftcoastaggie said:
"There was no quid pro quo"

---

Is perfectly legal to tie aid into investigating possible criminal activity. You are just pissed its possible democrat criminal activity.

---

More Proof:

Quote:

---

hbtheduce
In reply to SUag 9:59a, 10/10/19

AG

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

---

captkirk said:
This never happened

---

SUag said:


I'm actually pleased and relieved that the trumpian defense has retracted from "its ok as long as no quid pro quid" to "its not ok and trump never did it."

Problem is, both trump and Giuliani admitted it and the corroborating evidence is getting worse for them by the day.

LOCK THEM UP! -am I doing it right?

---

Nope, investigations into possible crimes isn't a political contribution.

---

If I go to HEB and buy a bag of chips, that is a quid pro quo. You give me those chips and I'll give you this cash. If you don't give me the chips you don't get the cash. Likewise, if I don't give you the cash, I don't get the chips.

For all the rocket scientist reading this, a quid pro quo is not something illegal. Quid pro quos are how the world goes round, and only how it goes round. No one does something for nothing. It should really not be that hard to comprehend.

EKUAg said:

---

Met is Wylie Coyote, etcetera.

---

While most of today's impeachment focus was on events at Congress today, an interesting background story came out in the WSJ about another member of the Giuliani / DiGenova / Toensing group of meddlers who were interfering with US foreign policy in Ukraine.

hbtheduce said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Should we give military aid to countries who don't provide aid for criminal investigations? Is it illegal for a Republican administration to investigate a Democrat? How about a Dem investigating a Republican?

---

Unfortunately for Trump, Mulvaney, and Giuliani, it is illegal -- and also a serious violation of the oath of office and an abuse of power of the Presidency -- for a President to use $350M in U.S. foreign aid money to bribe or extort a foreign country to investigate and smear the President's chief political opponent and interfere in upcoming U.S. Presidential elections.

---

Nope, opening investigations isn't illegal. Working with foreign governments isn't illegal. Pressuring them to comply with investigations isn't illegal.

"Abuse of power"
"Violating oath of office"

Can you please start listing actual laws broken instead of made up crimes?

---

As I pointed out earlier today:

Quote:

---

Two weeks ago, Trump was still falsely claiming "There was no quid pro quo!", and his supporters and the RWM dutifully echoed his claim.

But after two more weeks of sworn testimony from witnesses, Trump and the RWM and Trump supporters can no longer credibly claim Trump, Giuliani, and Mulvaney weren't involved in a quid pro quo scheme. Today, Tim Morrison drove another stake thru the heart of that false Trump claim.

---

Nailed it. And:

Quote:

---

The new hill for Trump supporters to defend is: "Okay, we admit Trump, Mulvaney, & Giuliani held back the $350M and attempted to use it to pressure Ukraine into a quid pro quo to investigate Biden, but it wasn't wrong or illegal."

---

And right on schedule, here y'all are, claiming:

-- it wasn't a serious violation of the oath of office

-- it wasn't an abuse of Presidential power

-- it wasn't illegal.

---

I've been posting this for weeks bud. You have been the one confused for weeks as if "Quid pro quo" was all you needed to prove. You have to prove this is a crime.

"Quid pro quo" isn't a crime
"abuse of power" isn't a crime

Its not a crime, because the "thing of value" Trump would receive is an investigation into possible bribery and extortion performed by the previous Vice President, and an investigation started on fabricated evidence that claimed he was a Russian asset. Those are in the public interest and is within the legal powers of the president of the united states. It doesn't matter that it helps Trump in reelection. Because EVERY action he takes supposedly helps his reelection.



For Proof

Quote:

---

hbtheduce
In reply to leftcoastaggie 2:59p, 10/23/19

AG

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

+ 3 more quotes (click to expand)

---

FireAg said:
Something of substance please...I don't care about things that don't mean **** to me or affect my life as a citizen or taxpayer...

---

leftcoastaggie said:
"There was no quid pro quo"

---

Is perfectly legal to tie aid into investigating possible criminal activity. You are just pissed its possible democrat criminal activity.

---

More Proof:

Quote:

---

hbtheduce
In reply to SUag 9:59a, 10/10/19

AG

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

---

captkirk said:
This never happened

---

SUag said:


I'm actually pleased and relieved that the trumpian defense has retracted from "its ok as long as no quid pro quid" to "its not ok and trump never did it."

Problem is, both trump and Giuliani admitted it and the corroborating evidence is getting worse for them by the day.

LOCK THEM UP! -am I doing it right?

---

Nope, investigations into possible crimes isn't a political contribution.

---

---

Actually you don't. Impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. It's a political proceeding. As Lindsay Graham(R) so eloquently said:

"You don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."

Maroon Dawn said:

---

It's not illegal

---

What would it matter if what was done was illegal or not?

100% agree. If you and ecetera want to adjust your claims that this was a legal, but impeachable offense, I think that would be more accurate.


Now obviously I disagree, but we can at least have a conversation from the same understanding of the facts.

hbtheduce said:

---

100% agree. If you and ecetera want to adjust your claims that this was a legal, but impeachable offense, I think that would be more accurate.


Now obviously I disagree, but we can at least have a conversation from the same understanding of the facts.

---

Aren't they all 2 or 3 posters with numerous usernames?

aginlakeway said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

100% agree. If you and ecetera want to adjust your claims that this was a legal, but impeachable offense, I think that would be more accurate.




Now obviously I disagree, but we can at least have a conversation from the same understanding of the facts.

---

Aren't they all 2 or 3 posters with numerous usernames?

---

I figured you were all Russian bots.

hbtheduce said:

---

If you and ecetera want to adjust your claims that this was a legal, but impeachable offense, I think that would be more accurate. Now obviously I disagree, but we can at least have a conversation from the same understanding of the facts.

---

Thus far all the evidence indicates it was an illegal scheme + a violation of this oath of office + a serious abuse of Presidential power + an impeachable offense. If new evidence is uncovered which contradicts that, then I'll re-evaluate. But thus far the evidence has all been very incriminating of Trump, Giuliani, and Mulvaney.

You're delusional but what's new.

MetoliusAg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

If you and ecetera want to adjust your claims that this was a legal, but impeachable offense, I think that would be more accurate. Now obviously I disagree, but we can at least have a conversation from the same understanding of the facts.

---

Thus far all the evidence indicates it was an illegal scheme + a violation of this oath of office + a serious abuse of Presidential power + an impeachable offense. If new evidence is uncovered which contradicts that, then I'll re-evaluate. But thus far the evidence has all been very incriminating of Trump, Giuliani, and Mulvaney.

---

You're nuts. If you believe that for real then you're really nuts.

MetoliusAg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

If you and ecetera want to adjust your claims that this was a legal, but impeachable offense, I think that would be more accurate. Now obviously I disagree, but we can at least have a conversation from the same understanding of the facts.

---

Thus far all the evidence indicates it was an illegal scheme + a violation of this oath of office + a serious abuse of Presidential power + an impeachable offense. If new evidence is uncovered which contradicts that, then I'll re-evaluate. But thus far the evidence has all been very incriminating of Trump, Giuliani, and Mulvaney.

---

Still haven't named a law violated. Just more "serious" sounding justice babble.

What law did Clinton break? Lying about a BJ?