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.
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
Fiona Hill??
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.
It’s hilariously obvious that these people are corrupt. ANY investigation into the swamp would benefit Trump politically. Does that mean he shouldn’t investigate the swamp? Here’s a novel idea, how about the swamp stop with their bribes and corrupt practices?!?
Only “excerpts” are being released, which means they have been doctored to say something they don’t.
A simple scan of Fiona Hill’s bio should have alerted any sentient Republican to her left wing (and certainly Democrat) proclivities. Whoever has been advising Trump on his foreign policy choices has done an incredibly lousy job.
Hearsay. 2nd hand news.
It is all they have because you can’t pull a direct witness out of your ass without having someone willing to commit perjury. Anybody can say anything about “hearsay”. In fact, I once heard Nancy Pelosi used to be a man. Gee, can I testify to Congress now?
This sh*t will keep going into the election.