Posted on 10/24/2019 7:52:07 AM PDT by Hojczyk
The current impeachment debate is being framed in terms of whether or not there was a “quid pro quo”— as if that is the bar that will determine whether or not President Trump did something egregious.
There are big flaws with this framing, as well as with the use of the term.
Diplomatic quid pro quo — requiring certain actions, behavior or “conditions” in return for U.S. aid — is common, according to current and former diplomats I spoke with, and foreign policy guidance. “Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the President may determine the terms and conditions under which most forms of assistance are provided.”
The notion that there’s something inherently wrong with this sort of foreign-aid diplomacy is raising concern among some career diplomats. A former Obama administration State Department official told me that, by controversializing this common practice, “the Democrats are basically hamstringing any future president.” He adds: “That’s why this is a constitutional moment.”
Most Americans may not know it, but Ukraine could be uniquely positioned to assist the U.S. in these matters. Multiple reports allege that Ukrainian officials, under a previous Ukrainian president, partnered with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016 to “sabotage Trump.”
According to Politico, “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump.” A paid consultant with the DNC, Alexandra Chalupa, met with Ukrainian officials in 2016 to “expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia,” Politico reported, and “the Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
RE: Diplomatic quid pro quo — requiring certain actions, behavior or “conditions” in return for U.S. aid — is common, according to current and former diplomats
Yes, it is common, BUT ONLY if the conditions under which the quid pro quo are made are meant to BENEFIT your country not yourself personally.
Biden’s quid pro quo is clearly meant to benefit the BIDEN FAMILY. That is corruption.
If Trump demands that Ukraine investigate the Biden Quid Pro Quo, it “just so happens” to benefit Trump’s re-election, but the fact that there *IS* corruption there is within the purview of his job as President — TO ENFORCE THE LAW.
Is Trump’s motive a selfish one? ( not wanting to benefit the USA, but himself )? Well, this is not a matter for men like Adam Schiff to determine, unless they are God.
The democrats were using Ukraine to launder money for the DNC..
The Ukranian effort was highly successful in connecting Trump’s campaign to Ukraine’s foe, Russia.
Thanks to Ukraine, Democrats had a hook in Trump. Dems gleefully proceeded to appoint a special
prosecutor at immense cost to taxpayers, who hounded Trump and his associates for months on end.
Paul Manafort was arrested at gunpoint while the Podesta brothers who he worked for went free due to their Clinton connecions
================================================
Let's play connect the dots....ready?
UKRANIAN BILLIONARE PINCHUK DONATED $29 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION-----he's THAT altruistic (cackle).
September 2013 -- Clinton Foundation mega-donor, Viktor Pinchuk introes Hillary Clinton paid speech at one of his events
(cough) promoting Ukrainian membership of the European Union, the break with Russia, and regime change in Kiev and Moscow.
POINTS TO PONDER Was Viktor Pinchuk the Oligarch that the fired Ukrainian prosecutor was investigating?
WRT a $5 billion IMF theft, being investigated simultaneously with Hunter Bidens $3 million salary?
SALIENT POINT: The fired Ukrainian prosecutor was investigating the $5 billion IMF money theft;
he was fired when Joe Biden twisted his arm for investigating (cough) Hunter Biden's Burisma appointment.
HMMMMMMM....Could be Obama was peeved that Hunter only got $3 million of the missing IMF $5 billion?
Or was Hunter----with the expensive cocaine habit-----holding out?
Ukraine sucking-up------a family affair.
Chelsea Clinton and Viktor Pinchuk who donated $29 million to Clinton Foundation in Kiev, Ukraine 8/21/16.
Politico reported that the Ukrainian Government worked to aid Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential elections. The actions taken by government officials included disseminating “documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.”
Those documents implicated Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who worked as an adviser for now-ousted Ukrainian President Viktor F. Yanukovych. However, the concerns that the documents raised weren’t in fact over any quasi-Russian ties, though partisan reporting pushed his narrative. Rather, the documents raised the question of whether Manafort declared the income that he had received from the position. The Podesta Group, a lobbying firm co-founded by Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta, also conducted work for Yanukovych.
However, the Manafort narrative not only painted Trump as pro-Russian, but also provided the Clinton campaign with a smear campaign while reaffirming its stance against Russia. It was in Ukraine’s best interest to tilt the election in support of Clinton, who strongly advocated for providing Ukraine with military aid and financial support in order to fight Russian separatists in the country.
Politico noted that Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American working as a consultant for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), met with top Ukrainian Officials in Washington D.C. about forcing Manafort’s resignation in order to perpetuate the narrative that Trump is connected to Russia. Both Chalupa and her sister Andrea have strongly pushed the anti-Russian narrative on social media, in addition to advocating that the electors of the electoral college defect from Trump. The report added, “Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections.”
In addition to the Chalupas, the co-founder and CTO of Crowdstrike, the cyber security firm that the DNC hired to investigate the alleged hacks, Dmitri Alperovitch, also serves as a senior fellow to the Washington-based think tank Atlantic Council, which is an openly anti-Russian organization partly . The Atlantic Council is funded by Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who also happens to be one of the most prolific donors to the Clinton Foundation. The DNC denied multiple requests from the FBI to access their servers, effectively forcing the FBI to rely on CrowdStrike’s assessment of the hacks.
The Atlantic Council has propagated anti-Russian sentiment and advocated for bolstering NATO forces in anticipation of a military conflict between with Russia long before Wikileaks released emails from the DNC and Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta. In 2013, the Atlantic Council awarded Hillary Clinton its Distinguished International Leadership Award. In 2014, the Atlantic Council hosted one of several events with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who took over after pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was removed in early 2014. In August, Politico reported that Donald Trump’s favorable rhetoric to Russia was concerning Ukraine. The article stated, “Russia wants Trump for U.S. president; Ukraine is terrified by Trump and prefers Hillary Clinton.”
In response to their preferred candidate losing the election, Ukrainian officials are now scrambling to revert from their lobbying for Hillary Clinton and the DNC. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko recently signed a $50,000-a-month contract with a lobbying firm to set up meetings with U.S. officials in the new administration. Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk wrote an op-ed on December 29 in the Wall Street Journal in which he argued that Ukraine needs make compromises to establish peace with Russia. After the election, reports surfaced that Pinchuk donated to Trump’s charity to try to gain the same favor and access that his donations to the Clinton Foundation afforded him. “The sole reason the Victor Pinchuk Foundation has reached out to President-elect Trump—as well as other world leaders—has been to promote strengthened and enduring ties between Ukraine and the West,” a spokeswoman for the Pinchuk foundation told ABC News.
While past elections in Ukraine have been viewed as proxy battles between the U.S. and Russia, it appears that the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. faced similar influence from two foreign countries attempting to influence an election outcome preferable to their own national interests.
Proving motive, without insider testimony or a paper trail, is impossible.
That’s why the Dims continue to fish.
Quid pro quo is the essence of any negotiation. I'll give you a dollar. You give me a loaf of bread.You get out of my way or I'll give you a kick in your Schiff. The question is who benefits Trump or the USA?
And yes, you can buy bread for a dollar at Frys.
It seems to me that Trump was requesting information in various forms from the Ukrainians. I do not see anything wrong with requesting information, or even holding up aid for the promise of Ukraine conducting an investigation to gather information.
The Democrats are assuming that Trump would use the information to smear his political opponent and not within his duties as Chief Law Enforcement Office of the USA. For the purposes of impeachment, if Trump was to get the information and only use it as a political bludgeon, that may be in the eyes of some a high crime (I don’t think so at all). If he took the information an passed it on to the Justice Department that is within his duties as POTUS. The Democrats are lynching this President on the assumption of what he would have done with this information.
motive
Can’t there be a dual motive, as long as he is acting on behalf of the country first? {hard to prove}.
RE: Can’t there be a dual motive, as long as he is acting on behalf of the country first?
I personally believe Trump had dual motives. But no, I can’t prove it.
And you are right — unless you are God, how do you prove it unless you actually have some sort of documentation or tape?
In the case of Joe Biden, we actually have a VIDEO showing that he FORCED Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son’s dealings with Burisma under threat of withholding aid.
we don’t have anything close to that for Trump other than 3rd or 4th hand hearsay from a disgruntled ex-Ambassador.
Therefore, since one cannot prove it, the principle of American jurisprudence applies — INNOCENT UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
RE: The question is who benefits Trump or the USA?
Actually, the investigation of Biden benefits BOTH the USA *AND* Trump.
It benefits the USA because if the investigation proves corruption, then we shall have prevented a corrupt entity from being President.
It benefits Trump for the same reason — IF Biden were the eventual nominee.
But just because it potentially benefits Trump does not make it impeachable. Otherwise, all one has to do to escape any charge of corruption is run for President.
Otherwise, all one has to do to escape any charge of corruption is run for President.
Things that make you go hmm.
p
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Exactly why biden is running in the first place. Plus same reason the hildabeast is always running for office
Best criminal defense ever
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.