Posted on 11/08/2019 12:28:12 PM PST by Mariner
Former National Security Council staffer Fiona Hill has testified that acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney approved a quid-pro-quo in which President Trump would meet with his Ukranian counterpart if he first agreed to open investigations that would benefit Trump politically.
Hill’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee was released on Friday along with the testimony of NSC official Alexander Vindman.
“Ambassador [to the European Union Gordon] Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians…was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations,” Hill told investigators.
House Democrats initiated their impeachment inquiry based on suspicions Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine to pressure the country to investigate Biden. In a July 25 phone conversation, Trump repeatedly urged Zelensky to investigate Biden, a little over a week after the White House withheld a military aid package marked for Ukraine.
However, Vindman, in his testimony, said Ukraine had no idea that military aid was being withheld at the time of the call. In his view, Ukrainian officials understood that they would have to open investigation into Biden in order to obtain a meeting between Zelensky and Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
She heard Sondland say quid pro quo in front of the Ukrainians based on a supposed agreement he had with Mulvaney.
But Sondland has already admitted POTUS told him no quid pro quo, but he, with his superior intellect and insight had deduced that was the requirement...even after being told it was not.
If it’s not written down, it didn’t happen.
These jerks just won’t stop with their garbage.
[[but he, with his superior intellect and insight]]
Read between the lines, and decoded the ‘true’ meaning of “NO QUID PRO QUO” to mean “Definitely quid pro quo” and all the liberals in ll la land smiled in glee-
This is all based on subjective interpretation- the fact of the case is there was no quid pro quo- the released call proves it
The democrats are trying to make the false claim that there doesn’t need to be pro quo- only quid- in order for it to be an ‘abuse of power’ and this is nonsense- they know it- all they are hoping for is to get enough rinos to side with them to impeach trump over nothing-
In fact, to make the charge stick, that Trump wanted Biden investigated, first, you'd have to prove that Biden was guilty.
Dang teenagers today. They think no means yes. :)
Making the core issue whether or not there was “quid pro quo” is a major strategic blunder. It tacitly concedes that any sort of “quid pro quo” arrangement with Ukraine would be at least unethical, or even illegal. And that’s completely false. It’s also the ONLY point about which we should even be willing to have any discussion.
Otherwise, all the left will have to do to win this is convince enough people that there was, in fact, some sort of quid pro quo. And there’s no way they won’t find deep state moles not just willing, but eager, to so claim.
Witness need not have first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth,... hand knowledge of the conversation.
Some of these plotters of this treasonous coup attempt need to be guillotined. Their poison is spewing all over the Republic, sourced I believe in John ‘the moose slime’ Brennan.
Such is the way of diplomacy.
“Resume investigation into possible criminal actions involving a would-be President’s family, or we don’t help you” is reasonable & proper - considering a US President, tasked with administrating the Department of Justice, cannot subpoena members of the Ukrainian justice department.
Despite dhimmicrap talking points to the contrary, I don’t see ANYTHING written ANYWHERE that clearly outlines DJT asking for any investigation ‘to benefit him politically’.
Was there a request? Likely...Yes. Was that request politically motivated? Or, was it an expression of US law?
To believe that DJT asked, specifically, for an investigation of Biden, as a political tool, would require that Trump had reason to be concerned that Biden would EVER be viable opposition candidate.
I do NOT believe Trump has ever taken Biden seriously in this role.
Of course, this won’t keep the dhimmicraps from pursuing their witch hunt...
Hey Zachary, this ain’t shit.
Oh, btw Zachary, I was told by a friend that you are a pedophile. Another friend of his said the same thing. He read in the NYT.
Oh and Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.
5.56mm
“Making the core issue whether or not there was “quid pro quo” is a major strategic blunder. “
Absolutely!
The corer issue is whether there was “reasonable suspicion” of law-breaking by the Bidens.
Fiona Hill??
This!
Such a bunch of nonsense.
Again; Everyone’s already seen the transcript so all this is BS theater to give the msm sound bites
1)Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15USC78dd-1)
It is illegal for a U.S. person to coerce or influence through bribery, extort a foreign into taking action that might financially benefit that person, his family or business.
2) Bribery (18USC201b)
Whoever corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to a public official to influence that public official is guilty of bribery.
3) Gratuities Act (180SC201)
Giving, offering, or promising anything of value to a public official in exchange for any official act is a violation of the gratuities act.
4) Hobbs Act-Extortion (18USC 1951)
A threat to a foreign official in order to obtain an official benefit affecting interstate or foreign commerce would constitute extortion under the Hobbs act.
Greg Jarrett also says Trump would be breaking law if he didn't press Ukraine on Biden corruption.
“The president is duty-bound under the ‘take care’ clause of the Constitution, if he knows of a potential corrupt act by a vice president trying to extort a foreign country to shut down a probe that involves his son, that’s bribery, honest services fraud,” Jarrett claimed, pushing a baseless claim. “If he doesn’t do it, it is a dereliction of his Constitutional duty.”
Yet the assertion that there WAS a “quid pro quo” still persists.
Honi soit qui mal y pense - shame be to him that evil thinks.
And these people are thinking along the most evil intents they can muster.
Is it possible they fail at simple logic and reason?
Count on it. They shall repeat the lies, slanders and calumny endlessly.
The ultimate post-modern progressive triumph is just around the corner ... no quid pro quo means yes quid pro quo ... war is peace ... the thought is all we care about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.