Transcript released - WH - No quid pro quo

originally posted by: CollateralDramage
Joe Biden extorted the Ukrainian government to the tune of $1 billion dollars if they didn't fire the prosecutor investigating his own son's corrupt company. They fired the prosecutor. Biden gave them $1 billion dollars. There is no questioning this as Biden unapologetically admitted to it on camera:

Just like the Steel report and the underhandedness in obtaining the FISA warrants the left sees that all as a none issue and it is all about Trump, and now the possible extortion and corruption with Biden and son is once again not an issue, its all about Trump looking into it all.

Boy they got some serious filters on their glasses.

a reply to: KeithCooper
Knock yourself out bub.
The doj already closed the "investigation".
You sell a crime the doj says didn't happen.
Cause you know the doj is the subject matter expert on criminal law.

So mr and mrs john q public, even tho the AG says it was not a crime, it really is.

Lol
I HOPE the dems attempt that line of bs.
Undoing the 2016 election over something that is not a crime?
Thats what "russia" does.
Bet the electorate shows up with a vengeance in 2020.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So I should trust your arm chair lawyering over all the legal scholars' articles and interviews regarding this very issue?

No, you should read the law for yourself.

Never mind, go on back to watching CNN. You're never going to get it. CNN is Mother; CNN is father.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, you should read the law for yourself.

I really wish more people would do this.

a reply to: KeithCooper

the DOJ in no way "TRUMPS" the Constitutional legal authority of the US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES in regards to IMPEACHMENT of the US PRESIDENT.

No, it doesn't. The voters do.

Let's just see what happens in 2020. Go on, pull that trigger. Quit playing around. Do it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

actually yeah they kind of were www.politifact.com...

The federal criminal charges filed against National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden make it seven times that the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act against government workers who shared information with the press. In at least two instances, the government’s investigations have delved into the practices of reporters and news organizations and put reporters in legal jeopardy. This has raised red flags among defenders of the media. In a vigorous exchange on CNN’s The Lead, host Jake Tapper asserted to Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post that "the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists ... more than all previous administrations combined."

and as IG he had to sign off on those prosecutions

www.politifact.com... and at least trump didnt campaign on better protections for whistle blowers like obama did and then repetedly go after the intelligence community for leaking stuff

As of this writing, Obama has signed both a law and an executive order increasing whistleblower protection rights, and the overall conditions for federal employees have improved greatly. One important exception, though, are whistleblowers in the intelligence community like Snowden, a former NSA contractor. "For non-national security/ intelligence community whistleblowers it has dramatically improved," said Angela Canterbury, director of public policy at the Project on Government Oversight. "But for anyone making public disclosures about national security/ intelligence wrongdoing, it is worse."

www.theguardian.com... 4 year old article from the guardian

More people have been prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act during the Obama-era than previous presidents combined. Photograph: Olivier Douliery/Olivier Douliery/Corbis Since Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, his government has waged a war against whistleblowers and official leakers. On his watch, there have been eight prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act – more than double those under all previous presidents combined.

but hey dont let that get in the way of "orange man bad" for going after one leaker so far and hey as long as they were high up in the dem food chain or politically connected enough they skated while lower level and less useful members of the community they got locked up from same link

Panetta, the former CIA director and defense secretary who has been a fixture in the Democratic firmament for decades, today spends his retirement on his walnut farm on California’s Monterey peninsula. Had his name been more obscure, or his position lower, he might have found himself in a less hospitable locale after permitting the makers of the film Zero Dark Thirty access to details about the secret raid that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. Film-maker Mark Boal was permitted to attend a secret speech Panetta gave at CIA headquarters on 24 June 2011, less than two months after the raid. Military special operators were “all in uniform with name tapes” and seated at the front, according to a 2013 draft Pentagon inspector general report. Panetta’s speech – the text of which read “SECRET//NO FORN” – ie, not for release to foreigners – revealed “the unit that conducted the operation and identified the ground commander by name”. Boal’s attendance, according to the inspector general report, occurred in an atmosphere defined by Obama administration eagerness to cooperate with Zero Dark Thirty. A key figure facilitating that cooperation was Michael Vickers, as undersecretary of defense for intelligence the Pentagon’s senior civilian intelligence official. Vickers is something of a CIA legend: a wunderkind who in the 1980s aided the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan, he was played by Christopher Denham in the 2007 Tom Hanks vehicle Charlie Wilson’s War.

goes on to talk about how Brennan leaked but got promoted and most here are very familiar with his name these days

Since joining Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign, the CIA director and former White House counter-terrorism and homeland security coordinator, John Brennan, has been Obama’s liaison to the secret world of US intelligence. It has rewarded Brennan tremendously: not only does he now run the agency he served for decades, his position appears secure even after he obstructed a Senate inquiry into Bush-era torture. Perhaps his most ironic aspect of that obstruction was an attempt to get the Justice Department to investigate Senate staffers for allegedly removing classified information.

this is exactly the kind of stuff that drives republicans mad dems constantly skate by on charges that have landed republicans in jail for hell some of them were even promoted and hey perhaps the next link ill post will explain why hey perhaps trump and the integence comunity wanted a secret server set up and run by the DNI to prevent future leaks like the snowden one from 2016 www.politico.com...

www.politico.com... here is the link to the full wingman statement ya know after he was allready held in contempt for not releasing documents what with him being "the presidents wingman and all"

www.washingtontimes.com...

Now compare that sketchy report with the very public pledge of allegiancemade by President Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, in 2013. Talking to a liberal radio host Holder responded to the rumors that he’d soon be stepping down from the Justice Department:At the time of Holder’s remarks (so no one can be accused of “whataboutism” in sycophantic defense of Donald Trump) Debra Heine contextualized AG Holder’s and President Obama’s chummy relationship: On June 20, 2012, Obama claimed executive privilege to cover Holder from releasing Fast and Furious documents sought by House investigators. The Obama administration got hundreds of Mexicans and one, (perhaps two) American law enforcement agents killed due to the criminally stupid gun running scheme, Fast and Furious. So far, they’ve gotten away with it. Nice to know how things work when the Attorney General is the president’s “wingman” and the president is the Attorney General’s “boy.”

and finally from NPR www.npr.org...

The Justice Department is never going to be fully independent of the White House. It's an executive branch agency, and all the senior-level officials there serve at the pleasure of the president," said Robert Driscoll, a Republican who served in the Bush administration. Over The Line? Just how close Holder's Justice Department and Obama's White House have become is the subject of speculation. Lawyers in and outside the department say the White House sometimes knows days or weeks ahead of time when controversial cases will be filed. And White House lawyers have reviewed some court briefs on health care and gay rights. Other White House officials have tried to delay announcements of Justice Department moves that might prove politically distracting during the long fight over health care legislation in Congress. This week, Republican senators flagged White House rhetoric on the controversial Arizona immigration law that they say was designed to influence the Justice Department case. Driscoll, who's involved in the issue because he defends an Arizona sheriff accused of going too far against illegal immigrants, raised similar questions. "It certainly appeared that the White House came up with the result first, and the Justice Department was directed to come up with the rationale for the result second," he said.

a reply to: KeithCooper

and the SENATE tries it which every one seems to forget about sure the house can impeach but the senate convicts or decides not to and unless you can convince 20 republicans and all of the independents in the senate to vote for impeachment and convict it wont be going anywhere .....i wouldn't hold my breath on that one as i see it being a repeat of Clinton failed impeachment minus having to find out what the definition of "is" is this time


www.businessinsider.com... l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-insider-main&fbclid=IwAR0H9A5xRN4At-42qv0F1nWl8cQRG8myNSRmZNtL88IZOD20qIBinN6Jf2Q edit to add

Senate Republicans, however, have mostly closed ranks around the president, either defending him or shrugging away concerns that Trump may have abused his power for his own gain. And barring any more significant revelations that scramble their political calculations, GOP senators are unlikely to support impeaching a president who still commands a sky-high approval rating among Republican voters. Fewer than a handful of GOP senators raised concerns over Trump's interactions with Ukraine, underscoring their desire to evade his political fury for real or perceived slights. At least 20 Republican senators would have to join all 45 Democrats and two independents to convict and oust Trump from office if an impeachment trial occurs.

so yeah...... not likely to be removed but hey let the house impeach him may at least make the dems feel better for a week or two

President Obama was a MASTER of Quid-Pro-Quo.

www.washingtontimes.com...

a reply to: carewemust

Along with his VP Quid Pro Joe!

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

That's the process. So be whatever the Senate trial entails. Trump breaks a law, he gets impeached. Not likely that many Republican weasels will vote against Trump in televised Court, but the American public will see more of just how sleazy he is...looks like he's even going to lose Texas this next election. The good to come out of this is Biden is toast. He was holding back any progressive agenda. Warren is surging, progressives are winning seats all over the Country, the older fatcat generation thankfully has about run it's course and we can see light at the end of the tunnel. Good luck drumming up support for the orange gasbag...yer gonna need it, lol.

I don't get it.

Even if Trump did, but looks like he didn't.

Our entire political system is predicated on quid pro quo.

You vote for one of two sides in exchange for something.

Our entire diplomatic system is also predicated on it.

So why is it suddenly bad?

a reply to: neo96

How many hours did Vice President Joe Biden give Ukraine before he would withhold their money if they did not fire the prosecutor who was investigating his sons company?

a reply to: carewemust

So we're talking blackmail?

Like when the usual suspects threaten to shut down government when they don't get their way?