Growing number of GOP Senators consider acknowledging Trump's quid pro quo on Ukraine

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JoeNation, Nov 2, 2019.

  1. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    Growing number of GOP senators consider acknowledging Trump's quid pro quo on Ukraine
    Source: MSN/Washington Post

    A growing number of Senate Republicans are ready to acknowledge that President Trump used U.S. military aid as leverage to force Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his family as the president repeatedly denies a quid pro quo.

    In this shift in strategy to defend Trump, these Republicans are insisting that the president’s action was not illegal and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as the Democratic-led House moves forward with the open phase of its probe.

    But the shift among Senate Republicans could complicate the message coming from Trump as he furiously fights the claim that he had withheld U.S. aid from Ukraine to pressure it to dig up dirt on a political rival, even as an increasing number of Republicans wonder how long they can continue to argue that no quid pro quo was at play in the matter.

    The pivot was the main topic during a private Senate GOP lunch on Wednesday, according to multiple people familiar with the session who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the meeting. Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) argued that there may have been a quid pro quo but said that the U.S. government often attaches conditions to foreign aid and that nothing was amiss in Trump’s doing so in the case of aid to Ukraine, these individuals said.

    Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...quid-pro-quo-on-ukraine/ar-AAJHp5b?li=BBnb7Kz
     
  2. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Active Member

    When we give foreign aid to a country, shouldn't we expect something in return, or are we supposed to be a bunch of patsies who feed money to foreign leaders for corrupt purposes? It is within a president’s duty to ask how the funds might be used, and if it is going to spent on activities that are against our interests? There nothing wrong with saying, “NO.”

    There is no disputing the fact that Hunter Biden was getting paid a lot of money to be on the board of that energy company. The amounts mentioned have ranged from $50,000 to $80,000 a month. Not even he can say that he has or had any special knowledge or expertise in the energy business. Yet he was paid at least $600,000 a year for several years.

    What was the source of this money? Could it have had something to do with what the U.S. was paying Ukraine?

    My brother-in-law is on the board of three publicly traded corporations. I am not sure what he gets from each of them, but I’d be willing to bet that it’s good deal less than $600k. Before he retired, he was a senior vice president, in charge of foreign operations, for a major, well-known consumer products company. In other words, he had the experience and the education to be qualified for those positions.

    I don’t see anything in Hunter Biden’s background that makes me think he’s worth $600k a year to sit on that board. Even he has admitted that he probably would have gotten the job if his name had been “Hunter Smith” instead of Hunter Biden.

    In addition, he has also gotten in trouble twice for cocaine. I don’t want to think about what would have happened to me if I had come out graduate school with cocaine on my personal record. I don’t think that I would have gotten a job with a major Fortune 500 company.
     
  3. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    If you want the military aid, you must investigate my political oppenent. That is illegal. Period! End of story. You can't use the power of your office to solicit anything of value for yourself. What part of that is confusing you?
     
  4. CoinBlazer

    CoinBlazer Ready for War!

    I would like to propose an alternate hypothetical observation
    If this phone call happened, would President Trump still ask for investigation against Biden, if Biden was not running for office?
     
    JoeNation and JohnHamilton like this.
  5. Recusant
    Spaced

    Recusant Member

    Since we're throwing around hypotheticals here: Say that Hillary Clinton was president, and Trump was a front-runner for the Republican nomination. Clinton speaks to the president of Azerbaijan, and tells him that she'll give him desperately needed military aid, but in exchange she wants him to investigate Ivanka Trump's involvement in a certain construction project in Baku, as well as the Trump Organization's possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Would Trump supporters and Republicans be OK with that?
     
    JoeNation likes this.
  6. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    How is this an alternative hypothetical since the phone call did happen and Trump did ask for an investigation of his number one political rival? I guess you are referring to the hypothetical that Biden wasn't running in the Democratic Primaries to unseat Trump in the 2020 election. If Biden wasn't running for office, and Trump asked a foreign country to investigate a US citizen that had no connection to any political party and therefore would not benefit him politically, it comes down to intent. What did Trump intend to accomplish through this investigation? The biggest challenge for the Democrats in this impeachment inquiry will be proving intent. That is why Trump's own words are going to be a vital part of this process.

    If the Dems are able to prove intent, and Trump does everything he can to obstruct the lawful impeachment inquiry, the articles of impeachment will inevitable include obstruction. If Trump doesn't turn over the tape of the phone call as ordered by the judiciary, he will be adding more fuel to the impeachment inquiry fire.

    I will propose an alternative hypothetical observation as well. If Trump really is interested in investigating corruption in Ukraine and not interested in a quid pro quo for political purposes against his main rival, turn over the tape of the conversation and clear your name.

    The tape will clear up the entire question. Trump's guilt or innocence will be proven once and for all. That is all that has to be done here. The country can move on.
     
  7. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    I''ll tell you two things: 1) The impeachment process in the modern era has been used as a political weapon far too often by both Republicans and Democrats alike. They effectively corrupted the Founding Fathers original need for the impeachment process. Both sides are guilty and you can justify whatever your party has done in the past as you wish. That's all just noise. 2) I am not a fan of impeachment the way it is being used and here is how the current process of impeachment will likely play out. The House will impeach Trump after a long public investigation dog-and-pony show. The Senate will not convict Trump along party lines. The country will end up making its mind up next November after all this has played out. And God save us all from the spin we are about to go through from both sides over the next year. Amen.
     
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  8. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Active Member

    This is the most sensible thing you have written. Yes, wait until November 2020. It's just a year away.

    This impeachment garbage needs to end, but it won't. Once this over the Democrats will start again next year. After a while the whole thing will become a farce and ruin the procedure for when it really is necessary.

    And as I said before, I thought the impeachment of Bill Clinton was stupid, non-productive, unnecessary and politically motivated, just like the current farce.
     
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  9. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Active Member

    Yes.

    If a Trump offspring was doing something illegal and Donald Trump was guilty of wrong doing, I’d get the scandal and him out of way as the front runner so that we could move on to another candidate.

    That’s what you Democrats might be doing. A few Republican commentators have speculated that this is a way to harass Trump and get Biden out of the way. That way Warren or Sanders, or the “Democrat savior” candidate would have clearer way to the nomination.

    From the historical perspective, I don’t think you will see the same candidate getting a major party presidential nomination two election cycles in a row. The last one to do it was Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and ‘56. Nixon’s first and second runs were split by 1964. It costs too much, and the competition is a lot sharper now.
     
  10. Recusant
    Spaced

    Recusant Member

    Ah, so you're OK with Hillary Clinton using her elected office and the US taxpayer's money as leverage for her own personal political benefit? You don't consider that corrupt at all?
     
  11. CoinBlazer

    CoinBlazer Ready for War!

    I believe that @JohnHamilton was saying yes to the removal of Trump as a primary candidate for the GOP if such claims in this hypothetical scenario was true. Less on the Hillary investigating part.
     
    JohnHamilton likes this.
  12. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Active Member

    I know that you are looking to trap me, but the point is if Trump's family was using their government influence to to push their finanacial interests, I would want to know that. If that was so then that would end his status as presidential candidate so far I am concerned. I would not vote for him.

    If the income that Joe Biden's son got from the Ukraine had any influence on Joe Biden while he was vice president and was in charge of the United States' policy toward the Ukraine, which he was, that would be a problem.

    You and the Democrats have no interest in that question. You won't even address it. Your investigations are all one way. The reason for them is to chip away at the president's credibility. If this blows over, it will be interesting to see what the next change will be. The Democrats have already hinted that they have some else.
     
  13. Recusant
    Spaced

    Recusant Member

    I'm looking for some honesty from you. I'm going to provisionally accept that you truly see no corruption in my hypothetical scenario, and that you would willingly accept Clinton using the power of her office and the leverage of American taxpayer's dollars to benefit her personal political interest.
     
  14. CoinBlazer

    CoinBlazer Ready for War!

    Innocent until proven guilty? Premeditated assumption?
     
  15. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Active Member

    I have been 100% honest with you. The point that I tried to make is that it would be within Mrs. Clinton’s duties as president to investigate corruption if the money we were paying to the Ukraine was being used for illegal purposes. Those duties are a part of the National Defense Authorization Act.

    In order to say that what Trump did was improper, you have to say that the payments to Hunter Biden were completely above board and that it would be improper to investigate them.

    You see nothing wrong with the fact that Hunter Biden was paid a salary, that amounted to millions of dollars, despite the fact that he had almost no qualifications for the position for which he was paid. Furthermore, Hunter Biden has admitted that he would not have gotten the job if his name had been “Hunter Smith.”

    You also don’t see anything wrong with the fact that his father was the Vice President of the United States at the time he was receiving that money. Furthermore, Joe Biden had the responsibility for Ukrainian foreign policy, in the Obama administration, at the time his son was receiving those payments. Biden claims he knew nothing about the payments. None of this passes the smell test for me, but for you, it does.

    Now if you want to call me a liar, go ahead.
     
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  16. Recusant
    Spaced

    Recusant Member

    Do you have a source for the idea that money allocated to defence of Ukraine was possibly being used for illegal purposes? The accusation that Giuliani was trying to gin up was that Hunter Biden being paid by a Ukrainian company was somehow a criminal act. There is no evidence that any money that went to Biden was coming from the US. Moreover, there is no evidence that any criminal activity took place. If there were, the proper authorities to investigate the matter would be law enforcement, specifically the FBI, not a stooge of the president like Giuliani.

    So what I'm hearing from you is that you have no problem with a clear instance of abuse of power and malfeasance by the president, because that abuse of power was directed at a possible instance of criminality on the part of the president's political opponent.

    I strongly disagree. The president using the power of his office to coerce a foreign government to investigate his political opponent is unequivocally an abuse of that power. The vague accusations against the Bidens, based on no actual evidence, appear to be nothing more than a pretext to harm the president's political opponent. If there were actual evidence, then the matter should be referred to the proper authorities. That was not what happened.

    Is it a criminal act to get paid for work done? Biden's lack of qualifications certainly don't make for a criminal case as far as I can tell and, while apparently mostly a figurehead, he did work for the company that paid him.

    Again, what is strange to me is that you seem so focused on this "smell" (possible corrupt behaviour) while giving a pass to what is clearly corrupt behaviour that is right in front of you.

    I admit that I question your assertion that you'd accept this abuse of power if it were Clinton doing it. There's no point to calling you a liar, I'm just amazed at the level of cognitive dissonance you appear to be capable of sustaining.
     
  17. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Active Member

    I answered your hypothetical concerning a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton. As president if she thought that the offspring of her opponent was doing some thing shady that might lead back to the parent, she has a perfect right to ask for foreign aid.

    I gave my honest opinion, and you have no respect for that.

    Instead of discussing that issue you come back questioning my integrity. You hate Trump; I think that he has done some things quite well. Like I said, you are looking to trap me. I am a partisan Republican; you are a Democrat despite all of you posturing. If you are an independent, so is Adam Schiff.
     
  18. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    I don't understand why this debunked previously investigated Hunter Biden story fascinates the right-wingers so much when we have these two guys.

    lev and Igor.jpg

    Both indicted for illegally funneling foreign money into Republican campaigns, both completely connected to organized crime, and both involved with getting the US Ukrainian ambassador fired through their connections to the Trump Administration among other criminal actives.

    Now you ask how connected are they to the Trump Administration? They claim to be working for Giuliani, the President's Lawyer, but they were found to have paid Rudy 500 K. Do they have a connection with Trump himself. Oh Yeah, google Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman and you can't even count the number of photos that will turn up with them and Trump. For instance:

    Trump lev and Igor.jpg

    How about other members of the Trump Sphere?

    Trump Jr.jpg

    I am continually accused of some viscous hatred of Trump. I hate Trump like I hate organized crime. There simply is no difference between the two.
     
  19. Recusant
    Spaced

    Recusant Member

    I already said that there is no point to calling you a liar, and I did not do so. You gave your honest opinion. Fine, my honest opinion is that I find it difficult to believe that you would be OK with Clinton abusing the power of her office for her personal political advantage.

    You can call me a faggot Communist Muslim atheist dirtbag for all I care. You don't know me, and your attempt to distract from the issue of the president abusing the power of his office is transparent and feeble. Is your conception of reality so limited that anybody who doesn't worship at the golden toilet altar of the Wonderful Trump must be a horrible, nasty Democrat?

    My post addressed a number of points germane to the actual issue but you wallow in an attempt to make this a personal dispute, ducking responding to anything of substance.

    The president deserves to be impeached and removed from office because he blatantly abused the power of that office. Trumpists have no substantial or convincing rebuttal to this, and desperately attempt to divert attention to something, anything else.
     
    JoeNation likes this.
  20. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Active Member

    Nothing I say will please you until I say that I am opposed to Trump, but I will clarify this issue.
    In the initial phases, “President Clinton” would have perfectly within the duties of her office to have asked the Ukraine for any information concerning the wrong doing of one of “candidate Trump’s” offspring within their country.

    It would be perfectly proper to have asked for help if the suspect had nothing to do with a presidential candidate. The fact that one is related to a political figure does not give them “political immunity.”

    If the initial inquire turned up nothing, then carrying it on any further would be improper.
     

Share This Page