Too Rich! Dems are the ones actually engaged in Quid Quo Pro with Ukraine!

Last year, President Trump infamously told us that "what (we're) seeing and what (we're) reading is not what's happening." In other words, if we hear President Trump say the ball is red, that does NOT mean he said the ball is red. In fact, if we hear President Trump say the ball is red, it likely means he did NOT say the ball is red. Such is the tortured language of loyal trumpsters today in the aftermath of Mick Mulvaney's nationally televised confession.

Just because we all heard Mulvaney say the Trump administration executes quid pro quos "all the time in foreign policy" in response to an ABC News reporter's reminder that he (Mulvaney) had just described a quid pro quo in the Ukraine matter, does NOT mean Mulvaney said the Trump administration executes quid pro quos "all the time in foreign policy." In fact, it means he did NOT say the Trump administration executes quid pro quos "all the time in foreign policy."

And just because in his press briefing none of us heard Mulvaney say anything close to "there was absolutely no quid pro quo" in the Ukrainian matter does NOT mean didn't say "there was absolutely no quid pro quo" in the Ukrainian matter. In fact, it means he DID say "there was absolutely no quid pro quo" in the Ukrainian matter.

What we saw and heard from Mick Mulvaney yesterday was not what not happened. That explains it.

p.s. And I was going to point out that your latest post failed to engage any of the questions I raised previously, but now I understand that just because you didn't engage any of the questions I raised previously doesn't mean you didn't engage any of the questions I raised previously. In fact, it means you DID engage ALL of the questions I raised previously.... What you didn't post is NOT what you didn't post. That explains it.

And you return to the theme with which you launched this thread: whataboutism. As was suggested by the utter failure of your OP in this thread, the key to successful whataboutism is comparable circumstances - the more comparable the better. You started this thread with a link to a townhall.com article about a letter to the Ukrainian government written by three U.S. senators. As I showed in my reply to you, that letter - its contents, intentions, authors, et al - raised NONE of the issues President Trump and his shadow State Department, headed by Secretary of State Rudy Giuliani, raise by their interactions with Ukraine. The two situations are wildly different, and that does not make for successful whataboutism.

Now you raise the "hidden billions of dollars sent in the secret to Iran from the Obama administration." Again, the comparable circumstances standard cripples your example:

• To my knowledge, the Obama administration made two distributions of money to the Iranians, neither of them "hidden in the secret." One was of $1.8 billion, a refund, with accrued interest, of the $400 million Iran had on account in the U.S. since the 1970's for weapons it purchased but never received (the revolution interrupted the transaction!) U.S. and Iranian negotiators agreed on the amount of interest that would be added to the original balance to account for the 40+ years it had sat out of Iranian reach. The other was of somewhere between $25 billion and $150 billion (independent experts suggest the total was in the $25-$50 billion range) money that belonged to Iran but that had been frozen by international sanctions of its nuclear program. When the JCPOA (the Iran nuclear deal) was signed in 2015, those sanctions ended and the money was freed up to return to Iranian control.
• So in both cases that I'm aware of, the Obama administration returned to Iran money that duly belonged to Iran but that had been duly held up by international sanctions or by transactions never completed. As soon as the sanctions ended or negotiators resolved the details, the money was duly returned.
• What was the money Trump used to pursue Ukrainian assistance against his political rivals? It belonged to the American people. Trump held back taxpayer funds Congress had duly appropriated to be aid to Ukraine.
• So Obama gave Iran back money it was due after it complied with duly specific and legal requirements. Trump used for distinctly political purposes American taxpayer money that had been specifically authorized for one and only one use. Not comparable.
• What about the quid pro quo? The JCPOA was a negotiated treaty. "You give here and we'll give there" is a completely appropriate offer in the negotiations that produce such agreements. The $1.8 billion figure was negotiated fairly and freely once the U.S. became convinced that an international court was going to rule against the US in the dispute about the money.Trump used taxpayer money in a secret and impeachable push for foreign assistance against a domestic political rival. Not comparable.

Bottom line: Obama gave Iran its money back and did not ask for Iranian help against domestic political rivals. Trump used American taxpayer money as leverage in his effort to secure assistance against domestic political rivals. NOT COMPARABLE.

And by the way: Your whataboutism reply did not change what Mick Mulvaney said. No attempt to evade or distract or change the subject will change what Mulvaney said or what we all know he meant.

Trump is "done like a baked potato"! Why tarry thou, arise and impeach. Justice demands it. CM

Did you read Taylor's opening statement in full? Did you read any of the news reports about the documentation Taylor provided to the House Committees? If your answer to either or both of those questions is yes, then you know - but aren't admitting - that Taylor offered A LOT "more solid than opinions." If your answer to either or both questions is no, then you have homework. Start HERE with Taylor's statement (the original document, please, not some politically partisan website's take on the document).

@reformed

• So when a witness in a murder trial testifies that the defendant told him or her of his or her plans to murder the victim, that can't be used as evidence because it's only what the witness was told?
• And when another witness produces text messages in which the defendant wrote of planning to kill the victim, those can't be used as evidence because they're only text messages?

You have a misguided definition of "evidence." What someone observes, hears, reads, is told, and/or receives in writing IS evidence.

Taylor testified as follows: (emphasis added)

"During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation.

"This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was conditioned on the investigations.

"Very concerned, on that same day I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message asking if “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Ambassador Sondland responded asking me to call him, which I did. During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

"Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations—in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such investigations."

THAT'S evidence, and it's evidence of a quid pro quo, an impeachable offense.

Elsewhere in his statement, the 50 year diplomat testified:

"According to Mr. Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a “quid pro quo.” But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."

AND THEN THIS...

"President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelenskyy did not “clear things up” in public, we would be at a “stalemate.” I understood a “stalemate” to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance. Ambassador Sondland said that this conversation concluded with President Zelenskyy agreeing to make a public statement in an interview with CNN."

Want to dispute Taylor's conclusion that "stalemate" meant the aid wouldn't flow if Zelenskyy didn't make the public statement on the investigations into Trump's domestic political rivals? Fine. If that's NOT what the word meant in that context, what DID it mean? And if that's not what the word meant to Zelenskyy in that context, why did he agree to make the public statement on CNN?

Have a read of the following article ....it provides a bit food for thought concerning the Biden & Co adventures in Ukraine

Hmn ... what's all this farce about with accusing Trump of some phone call with a president of Ukraine?

What about the talk and direct influence / blackmailing executed by Biden sen. in order to stop investigation into doings of his son Hunter Biden? The ah so innocent and wonderful Joe Biden even admits openly in public what he did as vice president of the USA:

What he IN FACT MEANT, and what IN FACT was understood by the Ukraine recipient of his "words", he made IN FACT abundantly clear ...

😂😂 ... maybe there was no personal concern since he was then not part of the government ? Or was he part of the government with LOTS of personal interest (as if the folks in government were all far above any corruption ...😎

On the topic of this thread, we should note that today Ambassador Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, filed an addendum to his previous testimony to the impeachment inquiry. In today's revision, Ambassador Sondland says others' testimony has refreshed his recollection, and that he now DOES remember having a conversation with a Ukranian official in which he told the official that U.S. aid to Ukraine would "likely" not be released until Ukraine publicly stated its intention to investigate the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory and Hunter Biden's role at Burisma.

That's "likely" what's called a quid pro quo.

Two weeks ago, President Trump heralded Sondlnd's testimony as evidence that there had not been a quid pro quo. After Sondland's amendment to his testimony today, it's considerably less "likely" Mr Trump will herald Mr Sondland's word.

Flat wrong and demonstrative of profound ignorance and/or intentional disregard of the fact that Donald Trump's current problems are the result of his obvious, inarguable, and in your face abuse of the powers of his office through his attempts to secure the Ukrainian government's investigation of his domestic political rivals. Perhaps in Russia such a move would not be a "problem," but in the United States it is (and rightly so).

I can't speak for "American progressives" writ large or even others among the "some folks here on CD" to whom you refer, but I can speak for myself: I want to "get rid of President Trump" through the ongoing impeachment process because he has abused the powers of his office, sought to extort assistance from a foreign nation, and on his own as well as in conspiracy with others acted to obstruct both the constitutionally-rooted investigatory powers of Congress and, in the investigation of Russian interference in our 2016 election, the process of justice.

More broadly, I want to "get rid of President Trump" - through the 2020 presidential election if removal from office is not the result of the current congressional process - because he has acted as a profoundly amoral, uninformed, mendacious, incurious, and narcissistic emotional invalid who by orders of magnitude is less prepared and qualified for the presidency than any of his predecessors.

Another "good question," Wolfgang, is why do some people (like some here on CD) want to help the ruling Trump administration stay in in power? Why are they seemingly blind to Mr Trump's serial lying, his obstruction of justice and abuses of power, and his unprecedented efforts to profit from his position as president?