It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer
You and I have the same extensive legal background.
Good! We got that argument out of the way.
However to put it clearly what you're arguing isn't a crime because of semantics. When the president is extorting a foreign official, anyone who enables that extortion on behalf of the president (Guliani) is also committing a crime.
That is true, but you assume extortion. There is no proof of extortion. There is only an insinuation on your part that I find difficult to see.
It is common for more than one subject to be breached within a single phone call, and those multiple subjects need not be related. The Ukrainian President indicates his own desire to have investigations into allegations of corruption in previous administrations. At one point, they discuss a female ambassador who has been replaced as someone who opposed the new administration's goals because of allegiance to the old administration. That sounds eerily familiar to what Trump has experienced.
There is no extortion when both parties agree to cooperate. Extortion implies that one party is exercising unwanted control over the other. There is simply no indication of that in this transcript. Without that premise, your legal argument falls apart.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
is "the meaning" capable of being translated into another language for those whom English is a second language?
since it is not as plain as the nose on your face?
originally posted by: pavil
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gorgonite
By all means, explain under what circumstances Trumps personal attorney should be involved in ”chief law enforcement officer of one country having a conversation with his counterpart in another country about possible crimes and corruption.”. Please explain what legitimate reason Rudy has to be involved in that conversation?
Maybe because Guilliani has relevant information which would be of use to the Ukrainian President? That is what Trump said in the transcript.
Hint: some of us read it. That was the first thing I did when I heard it had been released.
TheRedneck
Rudy in his segment with Ingrahm said:
Do you think I've released all my info on Biden? Do you think I'm stupid and I can't prove these allegations?
I'm pretty sure Rudy has the goods necessary to close the case. He even went on about China and the 1.5 B to Hunter's Hedge Fund.
Ukaraine is just the tip of the iceberg. Watch.
Word on the street though is this is one of several, and is the least damning, so I suspect that angle of defense becomes harder to leverage if there are more examples of the arrangement being presented to the Ukranian PM.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Agit8dChop
It sure looks like quid pro quo.
Trump had no understanding of the limitations of the office. He thought being president meant freedom to be lawless.
I sure hope Trump doesn't get impeached. I still prefer Trump over Pence.
One could, yes, look at the conversation that way, but one could also look at it as innocent.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
Word on the street though is this is one of several, and is the least damning, so I suspect that angle of defense becomes harder to leverage if there are more examples of the arrangement being presented to the Ukranian PM.
please by all means present them.....
do they also require English being your first language?
or is this one of those things you learn through experience, cause you know the Ukrainian president is newly elected and all.....
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer
Now, if you can show me a pattern, or a corroboration, or really anything other than a single transcript that supports the theory that this was an insinuation, then I'll reconsider in light of the new evidence. But from one transcript? Nope, not enough... not nearly enough. Not even enough to entertain the thought, especially when those pushing it are denying open admissions of identical actions from one of their own.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
also is the the new normal for all potus going forward?
releasing their conversations with other foreign leaders? or is this just a requirement for trump?