Quid Pro Quo? Yes. It was.

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 89
Topic's author
#1
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Rudy to Ukrainian officials...

All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out

...That would clear the air really well, and I think it would make it possible for me to come and make it possible, I think, for me to talk to the President (Trump) to see what I can do about making sure that whatever misunderstandings are put aside ... I kinda think that this could be a good thing for having a much better relationship.
3 days later Trump would go on to tell Zelensky "I need you to do is a favor THOUGH".

Are conservatives, on this site anyway, going to finally stop pretending there was no attempted quid pro quo?

#2
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
It sounds like he asked for him to do him a favor and just be honest. Being even handed and honest, is literally the opposite of quid pro quo. 


Rudy looks, like he believes he will benefit from said honesty, but I think it is sad when we are saying that asking for honesty is all of a sudden, a corrupt thing. 
#3
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
-->
@Double_R
I didn't know at the time that this controversy came to be discussed that Hunter Biden was involved in a criminal investigation by the FBI, which later became more common knowledge to the public.  I'm not sure I would have even knew his name had it not been for the person who leaked intel pertaining to a phone call by the president who was apparently interested in facilitating a similar investigation in Ukraine.  Now I suspect not just Hillary Clinton but also the Biden family at least at one time had some sort of relationship to corruption surrounding Ukrainian officials.  The ongoing nature is significant to me as the channels of influence do not appear from my perspective to be isolated as an individual matter, so naturally I'm open to the idea of Donald Trump being exposed through similar outreach. 

I don't presently understand how you might construe the situation pertaining to then-president Trump as an "abuse of power".


#4
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
I don't see why offering a favor to improve a relationship is a bad thing. Literally happens all the time. Do you think that Trump should help cover up Biden's corrupt dealings, of which, supposedly "evidence already exists"? (And if no evidence exists, then nothing would happen). I'd say he is neglecting his duty to the American people if he doesn't expose very pertinent information during an election: exposing information that really only he has the power to bring to light.

He should probably not cover for a corrupt political enemy, as his political opponents literally lied about evidence of Russian collusion for 4 years. They, in essence, "fabricated evidence" in the minds of people by making them believe there was evidence when there wasn't any.

It's like Nixon all over again: "YoU sPy On PoLiTiCaL oPpOnEnTs? HOW DARE YOU be the only president to ever do that!? IMPEACH!"
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
The Democrats just want to redefine what a quid pro quo is so that they can extend 4 more years of whataboutism to cover their chronic incompetence to solve problems in the nation.

Just like they redefined racism to include anything remotely related to nationalism.

It's the age of newspeak 1984 style. Obey authority.
#6
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Double_R
I love the weaponized hypocrisy here. If you are ever interested in evolution, watch the right wing ecosystem when Trump, or some related aspect key to their worldview is objectively shown to be terrible.

What you see, is experimentation with different explanations that get culled down based on survival of the fittest until the ecosystem settles on the bullet points that allows the sheep to simply shout down anyone without thinking about it too hard. It’s like argument short cuts; the mental equivalent of a chant : you don’t have to think about it, if anyone disagrees, just throw out the bullet point.


The prime example is here, you can see repeatedly in this thread - that it’s okay to investigate corruption, indeed it’s a duty. Unless your Barrack Obama - in which case it’s the biggest abuse of power in history (of course it didn’t really happen that way but, you know, facts) - hence the weaponized hypocrisy.

The biggest issues with this interpretation is simple, but all avoided by supporters looking for any defense they can rationalize themselves and who don’t want to think too hard about it.

It is of course, a load of horsesh*t.

The President isn’t and shouldn’t be, responsible for investigating people at all - and sure as f**k shouldn’t be responsible for investigating his opponents in any scenario.

Why? Well because you cannot tell whether the motivation is to get to the truth, or the motivation is to harm is opponent.

Actually, that’s not entirely true - you can often tell when it’s clearly one or the other: 

For example; if this was driven by the justice department requests, the FBI, and more information was needed, and this was the only way in which the president was involved and he was reluctant because of how it was look, but was told the only way to get at the truth was to ask the Ukrainians to assist the investigation, and he made clear he only wanted them to assist the investigation: then you could possibly make this claim.

But that’s obviously not the case for a variety of reasons - not least that the justice department were not touching it with a barge pole, the person making the deal was Trumps personal lawyer, and the goal being requested was not to launch an investigation, or to ensure the facts came out - but to publicly announce that there was an investigation.

And the fact that the scheme was so legit, so valid and such a necessary investigation that the whole thing was shut down the moment anyone blew the whistle.

The real bottom line here, is that if Trumps interest was simply harming Joe Biden : then leveraging his power as president with an ally to ensure political harm to an opponent - is a clear cut definitive abuse of power. Now; you can probably forgive some things, shifting resources around to harm a governor - they would be bad; but in this case it specifically risked the US relationship with another country and it’s global strategic interests in order to try and harm a political opponent. That’s pretty clear cut.


So let’s draw a scale of 1-10 here between 1 being 100% legit - and 10 being total corrupt abuse of power.

At 1, you have the president simply stating to his justice department “do whatever you think is good, keep me informed, but I can’t be involved due to the clear conflict of interest.”

At 10? That would involve explicit pressure outside of formal channels (check), threats (check) personal involvement (check), use of extra governmental actors linked to the president rather than formal staff (check), not using the FBI and investigatory staff to properly check it (check), fixating on the harming action rather than investigating crimes (check), subsequent cover up when discovered (check), personal recriminations (check), everyone at every level raising alarm bells that if looked like a drug deal (check).

There’s not many ways this could look more obviously like a politician hit through an abuse of power, it’s like at a 9.5. On a scale of 1-10 for clear cut nefarious actions.


There doesn’t seem to have been a substantial investigation into the original claims, at least we have not heard anything about one (presuming by the logic that it would be the presidents duty to tell us one existed), Trumps own security services have said many of the key claims are false - and has at the time, the senate has outlined that none of Biden’s actions appear at odds with US interests at the time (that’s the second most laughable claim about the Ukraine prosecutor nonsense), indeed, the only “evidence” of any wrong doing at all, were a couple of emails on a laptop that was magically found by the same guy implicated in the same political hit of the same person for the same thing and written by journalists who declined to put their name on the story...

So in terms of everyone’s actions before and since - it gives all the hall marks of this just being made up claims backed up by to make an opponent look bad. 

Saying that, I actually largely agree - in that the Ukraine scandal was only the third, or forty worst abuse of power and violation of oath of office in the one term. But hey - that’s just me.

If this was Barrack Obama, he would have been impeached probably six times by a Republican senate and congress and I suspect is likely have been removed 5 of those times.
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Also, fake investigations for political gain are only good when a Democrat does it.
#8
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Double_R
Are conservatives, on this site anyway, going to finally stop pretending there was no attempted quid pro quo?
We should make the distinction between American Conservatism and  the American Republican Party.   American Conservatism  is a political and social philosophy which characteristically shows respect for American traditions and limited federal governmental power in relation to the states. 

The Republican Party is whatever Donald Trump tells it to be. 

So while there are still some Conservatives who identify as members of the Republican Party- Mitt Romney, Colin Powell, Bill Kristol- there are no loyal Trumpists who might qualify as American Conservatives as that movement is defined.  When Trump makes official statements from the White House such as:

"I have the ultimate authority.....When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total and that’s the way it’s got to be. … It’s total. The governors know that.  [Governors] can’t do anything without the approval of the president of the United States."
Trump's philosophy is well established as not only antithetical to American Conservatism but to the American tradition of decentralized power going back to Plymouth Rock and Jamestown.  Trump's philosophy of governance is Authoritarian in the classic sense and Anti-American in every sense.

I'm sure some exception can be found but I'm not aware of any American Conservatives who did not acknowledge the quid pro quo manifest in the Trump-Zelensky phone call.

So, for example, Colin Powell responded:

"[Republicans] need to get a grip, and when they see things that aren’t right they need to say something about it. Because our foreign policy is a shambles right now, in my humble judgement.  And I see things happening that are hard to understand.....This is not the way the country is supposed to run, and Congress is one of the institutions that should be doing something about this. All parts of Congress. The media has a role to play. We all have a role to play. We’ve got to remember that all these pieces are part of our government: Executive Branch, Congress, Supreme Court and the fourth estate. And we have to remember the Constitution started with ‘we the people,’ not ‘me the President."

Bill Kristol judged:

"Trump deserves impeachment and removal over Ukraine."
Mitt Romney gave a famous speech on the occasion of his vote to convict:

" The Constitution is at the foundation of our Republic’s success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of our Congress these many days. We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other’s good faith.

The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a senator-juror, I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.

The House managers presented evidence supporting their case, and the White House counsel disputed that case. In addition, the president’s team presented three defenses, first that there could be no impeachment without a statutory crime, second that the Bidens’ conduct justified the president’s actions, and third, that the judgment of the president’s actions should be left to the voters. Let me first address those three defenses.

The historic meaning of the words “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the writings of the founders and my own reasoned judgment convince me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they’re not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office. To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a president might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove such a president defies reason.

The president’s counsel also notes that Vice President Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor general. If he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under investigation, the vice president should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong. With regards to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his father’s name is unsavory, but also not a crime. Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the president’s counsel that a crime had been committed, the president’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit. There’s no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the president would never have done what he did.

The defense argues that the Senate should leave the impeachment decision to the voters. While that logic is appealing to our democratic instincts, it is inconsistent with the Constitution’s requirement that the Senate, not the voters, try the president.

Hamilton explained that the founders’ decision to invest senators with this obligation rather than leave it to the voters was intended to minimize, to the extent possible, the partisan sentiments of the public at large. So the verdict is ours to render under our Constitution. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfill our duty. The grave question the Constitution tasked senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes, he did.

The president asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. The president withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so. The president delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders. The president’s purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.

What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.

In the last several weeks, I’ve received numerous calls and texts. Many demanded, in their words, that I “stand with the team.” I can assure you that that thought has been very much on my mind: You see, I support a great deal of what the president has done. I voted with him 80 percent of the time.

But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.

I’m aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters I will be vehemently denounced. I’m sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe that I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?

I sought to hear testimony from John Bolton, not only because I believed he could add context to the charges, but also because I hoped that what he might say could raise reasonable doubt and thus remove from me the awful obligation to vote for impeachment.

Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country. I believe that our Constitution was inspired by Providence. I’m convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our national character. As it is with each senator, my vote is an act of conviction. We’ve come to different conclusions fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience.

I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the president from office. The results of this Senate court will, in fact, be appealed to a higher court, the judgment of the American people. Voters will make the final decision, just as the president’s lawyers have implored. My vote will likely be in the minority in the Senate, but irrespective of these things, with my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability believing that my country expected it of me.

I will only be one name among many, no more, no less, to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial. They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the president did was wrong, grievously wrong. We are all footnotes at best in the annals of history, but in the most powerful nation on Earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that distinction is enough for any citizen."
John Bolton was Trump's top spy when he witnessed the phone call and confirmed that Trump and Zelensky were both clear on the quid pro quo- fake investigations in exchange for arms against Russia.  Bolton characterized the call as a "drug deal" and called Giuliani a "hand grenade" likely to blow up Trump's presidency.

Trump's own hand-picked man in Europe, Gordon Sondland, testified under oath that he received instructions from Trump personally to make sure Zelensky understood the quid pro quo context of the phone call.

So the answer to the question,  "are conservatives, on this site anyway, going to finally stop pretending there was no attempted quid pro quo?"  is:

  • Conservatives never pretended there was no quid pro quo, and
  • I am skeptical that there are any Conservatives, in the traditional American sense of that word, on this website.


Topic's author
#9
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Wylted
It sounds like he asked for him to do him a favor and just be honest. Being even handed and honest, is literally the opposite of quid pro quo. 
A quid pro quo is when you offer an official act in exchange for a personal benefit. Here we have Rudy asking for an *announcement* of an investigation into Trump’s political opponent in exchange for “making sure that whatever misunderstandings are put aside”. Please explain how you conclude that this is perfectly normal and acceptable.
Topic's author
#10
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Conway
I don't presently understand how you might construe the situation pertaining to then-president Trump as an "abuse of power".
See ramshutu’s post (#6). Not much I can do to top that.
Topic's author
#11
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't see why offering a favor to improve a relationship is a bad thing.
No one offered anyone a favor. Rudy asked Ukraine for something blatantly inappropriate at best (an investigation into the president’s political opponent) in exchange for “making sure that whatever misunderstandings are put aside”.

I look forward to the logical pretzel you will contort yourself into square this.

Do you think that Trump should help cover up Biden's corrupt dealings, of which, supposedly "evidence already exists"?
Staying out of something you have no business involving yourself in in the first place is not covering anything up.
Topic's author
#12
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
The Democrats just want to redefine what a quid pro quo is
It’s an exchange of an official act for ones personal gain. This isn’t complicated.
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
So what? all of politicking is a quid pro quo. It's just only bad when the orangeman does it and only good when someone with a D does it.

Nothing new to see here. Move on.
#14
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,749
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Wylted
It sounds like he asked for him to do him a favor and just be honest. Being even handed and honest, is literally the opposite of quid pro quo. 
oRaNGe mAN bAd ReEeeEeEeeEe
#15
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,749
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
So what? all of politicking is a quid pro quo. It's just only bad when the orangeman does it and only good when someone with a D does it.

Nothing new to see here. Move on.
The money was given to Ukraine and was going to be given because it was written into the budget by Congress. How are you supposed to have a quid pro quo if there isn’t leverage in the first place. Are the Ukrainians that dumb? Democrats would have you believe they are, even though it is one of the most corrupt nations in the world.
#16
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Double_R
Here we have Rudy asking for an *announcement* of an investigation into Trump’s political opponent 
Here is what I looked at below. He said evidence actually exists and that the honest person put in charge will find it. Why do the investigation in secret? If Trump's political opponent is innocent,  why does he call a request for an honest investigator, some sort of bad thing? I would be more concerned he said something like "hey we are faking some evidence and want a dishonest investigator". It looks like he said the opposite of those things though. 

he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election,
See above. He says that the evidence actually exists. Nothing wrong with prosecuting somebody who has done something illegal and actual evidence exists for.
#17
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Double_R
It’s an exchange of an official act for ones personal gain. This isn’t complicated.
When. It is a request for an honest investigation, it doesn't seem that bad. 
#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
The whole Trump impeachment over Ukraine was such a blatant Misdirection Program to anyone not with their head stuck up their favorite political party of elites.


#19
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Double_R
so it seems that if you ever want to rob a bank in a red state: simply dress yourself in a first principles proof of why something Trump did was objectively bad.

Not one f**ker will ever acknowledge your existence.
#20
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
I haven't seen all the evidence. I'm not even saying OP is wrong. It just doesn't seem that what he showed was unethical. Asking somebody to open up and announce an investigation. Especially if Rudy is saying he has evidence of wrong doing, is perfectly reasonable.  

I don't really know anything outside of what OP shared about this, but my guess is it is Trump doing what he does, being imprecise with his words, and people that hate him, giving those words the least charitable interpretation possible.
#21
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Also, fake investigations for political gain are only good when a Democrat does it.
An impeachment is merely an indictment. And as an NY judge once put it "You could indict a ham sandwich"
#22
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
No one offered anyone a favor. Rudy asked Ukraine for something blatantly inappropriate at best (an investigation into the president’s political opponent) in exchange for “making sure that whatever misunderstandings are put aside”.

Investigating a potential case of corruption is blatantly inappropriate? Do you not think that whether or not some corruption happened is important to know when that potentially corrupt person could be running the country? Wasn't that the whole point of that worthless Russia trial? To see if there was any collusion of our president?

Staying out of something you have no business involving yourself in in the first place is not covering anything up.

Investigating a former Vice President's potentially illegal or at the very least highly immoral/unethical use of power and severe conflicts of interest sounds like our business. Do you think that is something we should just keep buried and never bring up?

Ukraine had no (or very little) incentive to investigate a former foreign politician's corrupt acts related to getting their son a job at an energy company. So obviously, some sort of favor was needed to start the investigation. That favor would be an improved relationship (misunderstandings being put aside).
#23
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
You could indict a ham sandwich
The phrase comes from Sol Wachtler, the former chief judge of the New York State Court of Appeals.  Wachtler said district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that “by and large” they could get them to “indict a ham sandwich.”  In the case of Presidential impeachment, the House of Representatives serves as the DA  and the source of indictment while the Senate serves as Jury, so I'm not sure the metaphor applies. 
#24
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,749
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
In the future everyone will realize it was a huge nothingburger just like Lafayette Park incident. The trend favors only one side. I wonder why.
#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Because "D" is good and Orangemanbad.
#26
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@oromagi
The phrase comes from Sol Wachtler, the former chief judge of the New York State Court of Appeals.  Wachtler said district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that “by and large” they could get them to “indict a ham sandwich.”  In the case of Presidential impeachment, the House of Representatives serves as the DA  and the source of indictment while the Senate serves as Jury, so I'm not sure the metaphor applies. 

I was taking some liberty with the phrase, naturally, since Congress and courts differ. But based on how partisan the impeachment votes were, I am simply saying that as of right now, being impeached is meaningless. Having the opposition in the majority is enough to be impeached as president nowadays.

However, I think that the phrase still fits well. A grand jury votes to indict, so the House reps would be the grand jury in this case (while the Senate is the trial jury), and I suppose the DA would be party leadership (and Nancy Pelosi issues articles of impeachment to be voted on, I believe is how it works), who can whip up 100% of their members' votes (the influence on the grand jury).
Topic's author
#27
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So what? all of politicking is a quid pro quo
 What is so difficult about understanding what a quid pro quo is?

Asking a foreign country to investigate your political opponent in exchange for “a better relationship” with the US (continuation of the foreign aid you stopped and a meeting at the White House) is not politicking. That’s corruption. If you still find this difficult just imagine if Biden or Hillary did it, it will magically become crystal clear.
Topic's author
#28
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
The money was given to Ukraine and was going to be given because it was written into the budget by Congress. How are you supposed to have a quid pro quo if there isn’t leverage in the first place.
So if I go into a store with a handgun that’s not loaded, point it at the cashier and tell her to give me her money… I did nothing wrong because I couldn’t have shot her so I had no leverage. Ok.

Are the Ukrainians that dumb?
You seriously think that the Ukrainians see themselves being extorted by Trump and think to themselves… “well it’s in the US budget so we’ll be fine”?

Topic's author
#29
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Wylted
I would be more concerned he said something like "hey we are faking some evidence and want a dishonest investigator". It looks like he said the opposite of those things though.
Wylted, that’s a nice family you have there, would be a real shame if something were to happen to them.

This is what I heard one prosecutor describe as a false exculpatory.  Make your point clear, but use the right words so that if they are ever recorded you can use them to cast doubt on the jury. This is how mobsters talk because they know the authorities could always be listening, to a certain extent it’s common sense which is why I have a tough time taking this response seriously. Are you suggesting that if they didn’t state their intentions explicitly then it’s unreasonable to conclude said intentions?

You are also forgetting that Rudy didn’t actually ask for the investigation, he asked for an *announcement* of an investigation. There is no way to spin that. If the truth was the goal, the public wouldn’t need to know about it unless something was found. But we’re all know the political damage that would have been done if an investigation was announced. Just ask Hillary.

He said evidence actually exists and that the honest person put in charge will find it.
“Honest” is the false exculpatory. The word has no place in this sentence of this were an ethical request.  Honesty in an investigation is presumed unless you have reason to believe it should not be, in which case that further discussion on that is needed. There was none. Rudy used that word so that people like yourself would read it and go “look, he said honest”. Clearly it works.

I don't really know anything outside of what OP shared about this, but my guess is it is Trump doing what he does, being imprecise with his words, and people that hate him, giving those words the least charitable interpretation possible.
The more context you look at the worse it gets. But if you want a very simple example here’s an article recapping Igor Navikov’s recent interview on CNN. Novikov was an advisor to President Zelensky and he spells out how the Ukrainians felt about being extorted by Trump.
#30
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Double_R
This is what I heard one prosecutor describe as a false exculpatory.  Make your point clear, but use the right words so that if they are ever recorded you can use them to cast doubt on the jury.
The point wasn't clear to me. That means if this was an attempt at that sort of thing, it likely flew over the Ukrainian leader's head as well. They shouldn't be that subtle.

Is it just because he is a republican that you think his words mean, precisely the opposite of what he says? Like some sort of weird twisting of words? 

When JFK said the only thing to fear is fear itself, was he secretly saying we should be fearful of everything? 

If not, than how do you conclusively say what statements mean the opposite, of what is said? 

If you can't determine the difference, is it decided by how much you agree with that persons policy positions? 

If you are pro college football playoff and you have a person anti college football playoff, do you then say "well they disagree with me, so their statements are subject to the opposite day rule"?

Are you suggesting that if they didn’t state their intentions explicitly then it’s unreasonable to conclude said intentions?
Yes, if I tell you something, please listen to what I say, and don't think I am trying to hint at something. Especially if you think I am hinting at you doing something illegal. 

You are also forgetting that Rudy didn’t actually ask for the investigation, he asked for an *announcement* of an investigation. There is no way to spin that. If the truth was the goal, the public wouldn’t need to know about it unless something was found. But we’re all know the political damage that would have been done if an investigation was announced. Just ask Hillary.
Hillary lost because she didn't take her husband's advice. Bill knows how to run a winning campaign, and we he made suggestions, they laughed at him "silly Bill, that worked in the 90s, but would not work now". Funny enough, he was telling her to focus on the rust belt, and direct most of her campaigning there. If it was Bill running, he would have won. 

I don't think a single person changed their mind, merely because an bbn investigation was taking place. People vote based on which candidate most closely aligns with their ideology. I wouldn't change my vote, even if I found out the person I was voting for is a serial killer, most people feel the same way. 

“Honest” is the false exculpatory. The word has no place in this sentence of this were an ethical request.  Honesty in an investigation is presumed unless you have reason to believe it should not 

He likely used it, because he didn't want any crooked politicians to ruin the investigation by trying to cook up evidence. We know from the OJ trial, that even if a person is guilty, once you fuck with the evidence, everyone will consider them innocent and not trust any evidence. 

You have to use the word honest with Ukranians, so they don't go with their natural instincts to be dirty. 

Reading that now link now. Not sure the "feelings" of Ukranians are evidence of anything other than how they felt about the facts, but maybe it will change my mind.