The debate "Did Trump Bribe Ukraine" was started by
November 19, 2019, 3:39 pm.
By the way, jrardin12 is disagreeing with this statement.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 21 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 3 arguments, historybuff posted 9 arguments to the agreers part.
jrardin12 posted 18 arguments to the disagreers part.
jahnavi, historybuff, mr_raaz8948 and 17 visitors agree.
jrardin12, carson, Cisco, RoyDierlijk and 17 visitors disagree.
Bribery according to the Founding Father's was so the President of the US wouldn't receive money or gifts of a substantial nature that he would sell his loyalty to a foreign government and undermine his own country. That is what they meant by bribery.
I don't think we can say he did or he didn't if it's speculation. In a way, Ukraine could have asked for something in return. Money maybe, on the other hand Ukraine was probably happy to investigate Biden.
Agreed. Trump would very much like to be a leader like Putin. He would love to be able to use the mechanisms of the state to attack his rivals and ensure his own victory. That is how democracies die.
But I disagree that politicians had integrity in the nixon era. Republicans defended nixon to the very end, long after they knew he was guilty. The difference is that Nixon didn't have a 24 hour propaganda network telling people "don't believe your eyes" and "the deep state is framing him!". If Nixon had fox news, I think he would have gotten away with it. Fox news is keeping a solid chunk of the republican base on side and refusing to accept reality. As long as that base stays with trump, republican politicians will defend him because they have to in order to protect their jobs.
As terrible as trump is, I think Fox news is worse. They know Trump is guilty, but they will lie and say he isn't because it is good for their ratings.
Quid pro quo for American interests isn't an issue. The issue is a quid pro quo for the interests of the president. That's the impeachable offence. If Obama had used his political power as President to force another country to publicly investigate Trump then he'd have deserved to be impeached. That's what the people who wrote the constitution wanted to protect agasint. It's how a democracy turns into a dictatorship.
When the person in office uses the power of the office to make it harder for others to run you've become as corrupt as the most corrupt Asian, south American, Middle Eastern and African countries. They have a democratic facade, but it's not true democracy because if the opposition ever becomes a threat they are politically neutralised. That's what Trump was attempting to do.
Trump was leveraging aid to a small country at war with a super power. A country that had already had land taken from them by that super power. Ukraine and its president needed public support from the USA so Russia would need to be more careful. Trump was offering that in return for help with his campaign. That's using the power of office to influence your campaign. Nixon did the same thing, and there was bipartisan support for impeachment because politicians had integrity then.
And if that is so terrible then Carter, Bush and Obama should have all been impeached and removed.
Plenty of presidents have quid pro quo on meetings. Obama included. I remember the Dems complaining that Trump didn't put enough conditions when meeting foreign leaders.
even if that were true, it is still a crime. That's like saying he didn't use a gun to rob a store, he used a knife. Whether he used method 1 or method 2 to bribe ukraine is irrelevant. You acknowledge he bribed them, but deny he bribed them. That is some serious double think.
Sondland didn't say there was a quid pro quo on aid, but on a White House meeting.
When did he say that? He said trump said that, but Sondland also said there WAS a quid pro quo concerning the aid.
Well they already had weapons. Trump has already given them money before for the leathal weapons. Still, as Sondland and others said: the investigation was not linked to the aid.
They needed the aid money to buy the weapons. This is also a quote from the transcript:
President Zelenskyy - "I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes."
Trump - "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. "
Zelenskyy is saying they are ready for more weapons, which they need the aid money for, and trump responds saying he wants a favor.
The Ukrainians already had the weapons (that Obama didn't want to give them). We are talking about money. The aid, according to all the witnesses, was not linked to the investigation.
The Ukrainians ask for more weapons to defend themselves against the Russians. Trump responds with "do us a favor though" and then goes on to describe an investigation of the bidens. So the Ukrainians ask for weapons, trump asks for dirt on a political opponent. That is a quid pro quo.
Additionally, we have sworn testimony from people involved, particularly from Sondland, who confirmed it was a quid pro quo. There is no question of that.
I just read it. It does mention Biden. However, it doesn't mention a quo.
This is a direct quote from the call with the Ukranian president
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."
He absolutely did mention the bidens. He definitely asked the ukranians to investigate joe biden by name. He also called for the bidens to be investigated on TV. Please stop just blatantly lying when I have already disproved your lie.
He didn't even ask for dirt on the Bidens.
You are missing the point. Asking for the dirt was a crime. Holding up the funding/dangling the white house visit in exchange for the slander was a 2nd crime. Whether or not he got it is irrelevant. Arranging it was a crime. He just got caught before he managed to collect.
He has also committed more since that point. He has been threatening witnesses,refusing to turn over document and ordering people not to testify. That is witness tampering and obstruction of justice. There is at least 4 crimes we know for certain he has committed at this point.
There was no exchange for dirt.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, that is the exact same crime. Using the power of the president in exchange for dirt on a political president is a crime. Whether he was dangling aid or a visit to white house, it is still a crime. It's like saying I didn't give him money for the crystal meth, I game him my car. You are still buying the drugs. And trump is still abusing the power of his office for personal political gain. It is the exact same crime.
The quid pro quo didn't have to do with aid, but with visiting the White House; it is what Obama and presidents before him have done.
Which coverage have you been watching? Sondland said in his opening statement that Trump ordered a quid pro quo with Ukraine. Multiple witnesses have confirmed, under oath, that the president committed multiple crimes.
Sondland testified that he was told it was tied to Burisma. He pretends that at the time he didn't know that meant the bidens. But he now understands that trump ordered a quid pro quo with Ukraine to get dirt on a political rival. That is a crime.
Sondland said no one told him that the aid was tied to political investigations. It was only his opinion.
Wait, none of the witnesses have testified, under oath, that the President bribed, Extorted or committed an impeachable offense
Because that literally makes no sense. it's like a bank robber taking hostages but not letting the police know he has them. The leverage serves no purpose if you don't tell anyone about it.
Also keep in mind that his administration was actively hiding the fact that he had withheld the money. They didn't tell congress what they were doing. The people who did know the money was being withheld weren't being told why it was being withheld.
So in your version of events. Trump orders the money withheld and has his people lie an/or hide it from members of the US government and keep the reason for it being withheld a secret. He doesn't tell anyone he has withheld the money. He does absolutely nothing about the fact that the money has been withheld. Then he suddenly, and for no reason, releases the money on September 11th, 2 days after the inquiry into Trump's interactions with Ukraine was announced.
That makes absolutely no sense. He didn't tell most of the US government that he had done it. If the Ukrainians didn't know then there would be absolutely no reason to have withheld it in the 1st place, let alone to keep withholding it for months. And if the reason for withholding it was legit, why didn't he tell anyone about it? Why keep a legitimate use of power a secret? If it was legit why would he suddenly release it when the investigation started? If it was above board then there would be no reason to release it suddenly when the investigation started.
Didn't the Democrats bribe countries for dirt on Trump before an election.
Yes I do believe he would. Why not?
And on top of that, even if we didn't know for a fact that the Ukrainians had been told, which we do. Do you really think that trump would order the withholding of the money and then not tell any one? That explanation makes no sense. If you don't tell anyone, then withholding the money wouldn't serve any purpose.
That is expressly not true. Both Giuliani and Sondland told the Ukrainians. They knew they needed to announce an investigation of Biden in order to get the money. There is reporting that they had even planned the press conference where they were going to do it and that the reason they didn't is because the whistle blower came forward so they cancelled it.
Trump ordered that money be withheld, but Zelensky and his Minister of Foreign Affairs did not know until it broke on Politico. By then the Ukrainians were getting their money.
Several people have testified the Ukranians knew. Sondland confirmed that trump ordered it. There is no question any more that trump extorted the Ukranians.
The most common defense I have heard since sondland testifying was the conversation in which trump told him he (Trump) didn't want anything from ukraine, no quid pro quo. But Trump had that conversation the day the whistle blower complaint came out. It's essentially like a mobster saying "I don't want anything from that store owner" the day the police start investigating a store being shaken down for protection money. Of course you are going to deny it once the investigation of the crime has started.
nothing personal, we both think the otherside has TDS. i prefer to stick to the issues since we can actually have a dialogue there instead of talking past each other. and by we, i mean left wing/right wing everyone, not anything about you individually. we are deep in a divide.
according to testimony by laura cooper, ukrainians knew as far back as july. i get that fox news and the Republicans keep spinning the news, but that isnt reality.
i find it hilarious. i happened to catch a bit of a hearing 2 or 3 days ago and the Republicans essentially took their time to tell the witness what his testimony is without asking a single question or giving the witness a chance to say a single word. meanwhile the dems directly quoted testimony, which said the exact opposite of the Republican spin.
its really not worth it discussing trump with one of his cultists. we live in different worlds. in the words of trump himself: "i can shoot a man in the middle of 5th avenue and not lose a single vote". impeachment will play out the way it will. the Senate will acquit, and the next election will have the people's say. after that, history books will have the final say.
Even all the witnesses the House dragged in confirmed that the Ukrainians didn't know about it.
Because they have said it. Both Zelensky and his Minister of Foreign Affairs.
why do you think they didnt know about it?
How can you Extort/Bribe if the other party doesn't know it?
i was also wondering if you meant transcripts of the call or the hearings.
even the transcript of the call, as released, sounded guilty to me. republicans expect trump to use the dumbest most explicit language in order to be guilty that even street thugs know to avoid when extorting a local business.... "we never said they we gonna burn the store, we were just offering protection in case someone happened to burn their store. perfectly peaceful. see even the store owner said no pressure nervously."
I was just joking lol. It's pretty clear he deserves to be impeached, but the defence seems to just be "Read the transcript" of the call that isn't even a verbatim transcript
im curious what your alluding to with that question. do you mean the transcripts of the calls or the interviews? and what conclusion did you draw? @allirix
Yes. The president of ukraine says they are ready for more weapons to defend themselves. Trump says I would like you to do us a favor though. So Ukraine asks for something they were promised, trump says they need to do him a favor. He then goes on to ask them to investigate the bidens. That is the definition of a quid pro quo. Ukraine gets the support they were promised, Trump gets slander aimed at his political rival.
Additional testimony has also shown that Giuliani and Sondland had made it clear to the Ukrainians in advance of that call that they would need to announce they were investigating Joe Biden in order for the money and the White House meeting to happen. That is why they didn't really go into any details. Trump had his lackeys give them the details in advance so he wouldn't have to ask directly. Much like a mob boss.
But have you read the transcript?
Fun fact, there are now 7 witnesses who have confirmed what was in the whistle blower report. This now includes sondland who donated 1 million to trump and was hand picked to be an ambassador. He is both a 1st hand witness (trump claimed it was all hearsay) as well as a trump ally (trump claims everyone who testifies is a "never trumper".
There is now no doubt that trump engaged in a quid pro quo with Ukraine in an attempt to smear Joe Biden. This is a crime.
He didn't bribe Ukraine. He extorted them. The US congress approved funding for aid. Trump withheld that aid and told them to announce a criminal investigation of his political rival or they wouldn't get the aid they needed to defend themselves from the Russians.
So essentially, he told them to give him what he wanted or he wouldn't give them the help they had been promised. That is extortion, not bribery. It is still a crime though.