Posted on Oct 4, 2019
Texts Detail Top U.S. Diplomat's Concerns About Possible Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo
602
9
6
4
4
0
Some of the back and forth on the texts coming to light put forth the idea that there was a quid pro quo with Trump and Ukraine. I don't want to hang my hat on that as a quid pro quo only makes the situation worse, but isn't the real problem. But the texts are none the less interesting.
What it looks like here is that Taylor keeps trying to put what he heard in verbal communication in writing so there is a record and Trump loyalist Sondland replying (paraphrase), you heard that wrong, let's get back on the phone where there is no record of what is being said.
Also very interesting that we appear to be giving the Ukraine a draft of a press release about investigations. When I say "interesting", I mean it in the most WTF way possible.
"On Aug. 13, Volker sends Sondland what appears to be a proposed draft of a Ukraine statement in which Kyiv pledges to pay "special attention" to U.S. election interference, "especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians."
In the proposed draft, Kyiv would further agree to investigate "Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections."
"The alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians" in U.S. elections appears to be a reference to a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, meddled in the 2016 presidential election. But it's a storyline that Trump and Giuliani have insisted on pursuing.
Sondland replies: "Perfect. Lets send to Andrey after our call.""
What it looks like here is that Taylor keeps trying to put what he heard in verbal communication in writing so there is a record and Trump loyalist Sondland replying (paraphrase), you heard that wrong, let's get back on the phone where there is no record of what is being said.
Also very interesting that we appear to be giving the Ukraine a draft of a press release about investigations. When I say "interesting", I mean it in the most WTF way possible.
"On Aug. 13, Volker sends Sondland what appears to be a proposed draft of a Ukraine statement in which Kyiv pledges to pay "special attention" to U.S. election interference, "especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians."
In the proposed draft, Kyiv would further agree to investigate "Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections."
"The alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians" in U.S. elections appears to be a reference to a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, meddled in the 2016 presidential election. But it's a storyline that Trump and Giuliani have insisted on pursuing.
Sondland replies: "Perfect. Lets send to Andrey after our call.""
Texts Detail Top U.S. Diplomat's Concerns About Possible Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo
Posted from npr.orgPosted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
Congress
Office of the President (POTUS) Congress
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
Even if there was a quid pro quo, no law was broken. Democrats can't even properly cite a law that was broken. Instead they are running around stating a campaign finance law was broken that states someone involved in a political campaign cannot solicit "an item of value".....meaning monetary value from a foreign government. Is POTUS involved in a political campaign? Is there monetary value in asking someone to investigate Biden and is that considered a financial contribution to the Trump campaign. Dems are stretching the interpretation of the law here way out of bounds of what it was written to prevent (solicitation of financial bribes). I seriously doubt this will impact the electorate negatively and I still think Trump will sail to victory in the next election despite the wishful thinking or the "gotcha" going on now. Americans are not stupid and eventually will read the text of the law that the Democrats are saying Trump broke........they will then scratch their heads and think, WTF?
(2)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Impeachment doesn't require laws to be broken. At one time, not to long ago, we considered ethical conduct outside the lens of strictly what is legal. Legality and ethical conduct oftentimes do not coincide.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
SPC Kevin Ford - Where does it say in the Constitution that impeachment doesn't require laws to be broken? You're just parroting what you've heard from people who are just parroting what they've heard from political operatives. The Constitution says high crimes and misdemeanors. We already know what a misdemeanor is because we still use that term today so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a high crime is a felony.
(0)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
SPC Kevin Ford - Even if that were true, almost every single Democrat went on TV and stated right to the camera per Nancy Pelosi's Conference Call instructions: "Nobody is above the Law". Why say that if the Democrats feel that no laws were broken?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google