Here's the quid pro quo (Volker texts)

Yes the difference is the big R and bit D.

Trump is not bribing anyone to get favoritism or seeking their help to influence the election.

Hilary and the DNC on the other hand directly sought dirt from the Ukrainians specifically to harm the Trump campaign.

Joe created this mess by bragging about his success in blackmailing the Ukrainians into firing the prosecutor that was investigating Bursima a company that only hired Hunter in the first place because his dad had been made the official point man on US/Ukrainian affairs.

Well that certainly isnā€™t true, I have repeatedly explained the details numerous times in numerous threads.

Reminder if you are pulling quotes from someplace, or pictures of text messages, or that, you NEED to link to where they come from.

These texts make it crystal clear. Quid Quo Pro. No meeting, no money, unless you publicly support investigating Trumpā€™s political rival, and support his political theories.

Thereā€™s no mention of money and a ā€œmeetingā€ is not a thing of value.

Of course it is, but thatā€™s beside the point.

A meeting with the POTUS is a function of diplomacy. Trump was using that function of diplomacy - meaning, his tax payer funded job - to convince a foreign leader to do his political bidding.

Itā€™s a simple as that.

1 Like

Whatā€™s your opinion on this series of text messages?

52%20AM

https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/5/0/50759349-fe81-4444-a990-65c92528de82/50EE8A2F1CFC493A98876200762152FC.chairmen-letter-on-state-departmnent-texts-10-03-19.pdf

Maybe in your imagination. There is ample reason for an investigation because of Joe running his big mouth bragging about blackmailing the Ukrainian Govā€™t to fire the prosecutor looking into Barisma.

Iā€™ve already given it.

What a silly thing to say. Of course trump as POTUS can beer any matter he chooses to the FBI and/or the DoJ for investigation and that would be completely fine.

Of course, if he threatened to withhold something in return for follow up on that investigation, that would be a problem, as it is here now.

Question - the FBI investigated the Crowdstrike stuff. they determined Ukraine had nothing to do with it, and Russia was the hacker. Why would trump want the Ukraine to investigate a subject the FBI already covered and reached a conclusion on?

So why wouldnā€™t Trump want the FBI to do that investigation? Why would he prefer Urkraine to do it?

Court documents proved that the DNC and Hillary sought and got help from the Ukranian Govā€™t to derail the Trump campaign.

Who has more authority inside of the Ukraine, the FBI or Ukrainian authorities?

Link please.

And what does that have to do with my question? Why wouldnā€™t Trump prefer to have the FBI investigate the matter?

Who has more of an ability to bring american lawbreakers to justice, the FBI or Ukranian authorities?

Sondland doesnā€™t even deny the quid pro quo, and theyā€™ve made it clear in previous texts too. He just denied that it was for the benefit of the campaign :joy:

EDIT: clearly missed a sentence where he denies a quid pro quo.

Thatā€™s all it is. I get it, people support Trump. But why play this game? What do Trump supporters get out of it?

That all depends on whether the violations are of US or Ukrainian law.

Nothing precludes the two from cooperating for the benefit of both either but if the Ukrainians cannot come up with anything on there end thereā€™s not much chance the FBI would have any more capability at looking into actions taken in the Ukraine than the Ukrainians.

Iā€™m fine with the Ukrainians starting the process on their end.

Read that last text again and get back with us on it.

1 Like

What evidentiary standards would a US court apply to evidence gathered by the Ukrainianā€™s?