The biggest thing here is for the Ukrainians there was no Quid. The Ukrainians are adamant that in no way was their military aid funding contingent upon anything related to Trump's request. For me that is the biggest takeaway.
#47 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
Your assertion is then, that if Trump tried to pressure Ukraine with aid, then Ukraine would say "yes, we were pressured"? You don't think that Zelenskyy ADMITTING he was pushed around by Trump would make him look weak (so therefore he has an incentive not to admit it happened)? And, you don't think that Trump would react poorly to Ukraine saying "he was trying to do a quid pro quo", possibly holding it against them in the future if he survived this scandal (as he has survived scandals in the past)?
When did you become so naive?
And, I am assuming that we can all agree that Trump DID delay the aid to Ukraine. I have seen nothing to contradict the claim that the reason it was held up was that Trump personally requested it to be.
So, if you think the aid being held up was "in no way" contingent upon Trump's request, what is your explanation as for why it was held up?
Conservatives claim that it CAN'T be a quid pro quo because Trump never said "If you don't investigate Biden, then I will not give you the military aid". But only an idiot would lay out a quid pro quo like that, especially in a call that is being recorded/transcribed/witnessed/etc. Though, from their arguments, that is apparently how conservatives would approach an illicit quid pro quo (not that I'm saying conservatives are idiots, but if the glove fits?).
If I were to have the ethical flexibility of a conservative and an opportunity to abuse my position of political gain, I would approach the "quid pro quo" as follows... I would hold up the aid, but not tell them why. Before the call I would probably try to make sure they knew that the aid was delayed, but would do it through a back channel so it is more "they have heard the aid might be delayed" as opposed to being directly told "it is delayed". But, if the back channel did not get through before the call, it would not be a big deal (they would find out eventually even without the back channel). Then, during the call I would just "innocently" request my "quo" without any reference to the "quid". If they later ask why the aid is delayed, there would be some bureaucratic excuse for it. But, once they started delivering on the "quo" the aid would "magically" start appearing in their bank account. It might take a couple of months for them to figure it out, but they would figure it out eventually.
Now let me remind you of the timeline. Trump supposedly requested that the aid be held up before the call. Zelenskyy has said that no one told him why the aid was held up, and that he was not pressured, but I cannot find anywhere where he says that he did not KNOW it was delayed when he had the call with Trump. The call was on July 24th. The whistleblower report was filed on August 12th. The IG of the intelligence community notifies the House intelligence committee of the whistleblower on September 9th. Trump finally releases he aid to Ukraine on September 11th.
So, in my scenario, Zelenskyy would have had a MONTH AND A HALF to "stew" about all the potentially reasons why the aid was "delayed" before I would potentially be "forced" to release it due to the whistleblower report coming out (gotta take the "quid" off the table before the whole thing blows up).
But, then again, I am a liberal so have the intelligence to do something like that. You can always argue that a conservative like Trump is not intelligent enough to pull a "quid pro quo" without directly saying "if you do this, I will give you that."