Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, November 21, 2019

President Trump quoted a portion of the testimony of U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland as he departed the White House Wednesday: "I want nothing. I want nothing," Mr. Trump read to reporters outside the White House.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This how Trump defined "the right thing":

The President: 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. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There- are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

The other thing, 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.

In Trump's own words he defines how he sees "the right thing" and it's very specific and he never mentions the word corruption unless it was related to the Bidens personally or the 2016 US election.

There is no ambiguity here, Trump has said it all with his own mouth, using his own words.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-21 08:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If someone truly wanted nothing, wouldn't they just say, "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky, there is no quid pro quo"? I think you are right, Tony, that by adding, "Tell Zelensky--President Zelensky to do the right thing," Trump was sending Zelensky the message: Do the "favor" I asked of you. Someone who didn't know the history of Trump's conversations with Zelensky--or Rudy speaking to Zelensky's people behind the scenes--would think that comment was innocuous, but Zelensky and his administration, who knew the aid and the WH mtg were being held up, would know the real meaning behind of Trump's seemingly innocent words.

It's like what I posted yesterday about what Michael Cohen said about how Trump operates:

Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That's not how he operates.

In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell me there's no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing. In his way, he was telling me to lie.

www.cnbc.com

Of course Trump denied there was a qui pro quo (that's what plausible deniability is all about), but that didn't stop Trump from conveying his real message: Do the right thing, i.e, the favor I asked of you.

#2 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-11-21 09:07 AM | Reply

Should he have just said .....

I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-21 10:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

If #3 isn't bribery according to the now fashionable Democrat definition .. I don't know what is.

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-21 10:43 AM | Reply

"If #3 isn't bribery according to the now fashionable Democrat definition .. I don't know what is." - #4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-21 10:43 AM

Was it for the personal/political benefit of a single US politician?

Biden led a Western/anticorruption consensus
Obviously it wasn't for the personal/political benefit of a single US politician.

And just as obvious, you don't know that.

#5 | Posted by Hans at 2019-11-21 10:48 AM | Reply

#3 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS -- flagged Idiot by Justagirl_Idaho

As proven multiple times this was a completely different circumstance and a completely different type of funds. If it wasnt for spreading misinformation you would have very little to say.

#6 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-21 11:01 AM | Reply

"f it wasnt for spreading misinformation you would have very little to say."

Mackris is clearly here to lie. Even when corrected with facts and a link, he'll repeat his lies, again and again.

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-21 11:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

#3 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Of course you're still beating that lame horse.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-21 02:10 PM | Reply

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Fat Nixon say that to Sondland on the phone AFTER they were caught by Congress?

"Trump read the note, recounting a Sept. 9 phone conversation with Sondland in which he dictated a response to assuage concerns from diplomat Bill Taylor, who had texted Sondland his concern that "it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.""
news.yahoo.com

You can't say "No Quid Pro Quo" after months of demanding a quid pro quo.

That's like telling a hitman to not murder a guy after he did the job.

#9 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-11-21 03:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If #3 isn't bribery according to the now fashionable Democrat definition .. I don't know what is.

#4 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

You can call it whatever you want. The problem is that Trump "bribed" the President of Ukraine for his PERSONAL gain, not in furtherance of US policy.

If you can prove that Joe Biden "bribed" that official primarily to protect/enrich his son, then I would agree with you that he has violated public trust and should NEVER hold another public office again.

I am willing to draw that line in the sand. Are you willing to say the same sort of thing about Trump?

I very much doubt it, because conservatives like you have been very consistent in being unable to identify ANYTHING that you think would justify a conservative President being impeached or barred from running for any future public office.

#10 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-21 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

You can call it whatever you want. The problem is that Trump "bribed" the President of Ukraine for his PERSONAL gain, not in furtherance of US policy.
If you can prove that Joe Biden "bribed" that official primarily to protect/enrich his son, then I would agree with you that he has violated public trust and should NEVER hold another public office again.
I am willing to draw that line in the sand. Are you willing to say the same sort of thing about Trump?
I very much doubt it, because conservatives like you have been very consistent in being unable to identify ANYTHING that you think would justify a conservative President being impeached or barred from running for any future public office.

#10 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-11-21 03:56 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 2

NEWSWORTHY

But good luck getting MACKRIS to acquiesce to anything anti-Trump. She's a troll and only finds "owning the libs" entertaining. She won't touch Trump's malfeasance. She will choose to ignore the FACT that it had been well known Biden threatened to withhold Ukrainian aide if they didn't fire corrupt prosecutor even before Trump was elected. The timing of Trump's concern regarding Ukraine's corruption is incredibly noteworthy. Yet MACKRIS will continue to choose to ignore the FACT Trump had a full two years of complete Republican power over government to take Biden to task for his "corrupt" behavior. Instead, MACKRIS supports Trump's timing in demanding investigation into Biden and his son only AFTER Biden announced his 2020 campaign.

Ignore. Ignore. Ignorance. All of it chosen and willful by the MACKRIS.

#11 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-21 04:47 PM | Reply

#10 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

Yep. If Biden were to be proven dirty, he should face the consequences. The thing is, Trump should not be the one looking into that. We all heard what Ambassador Sondland said: Trump "doesn't give a ---- about Ukraine;" he just wanted the dirt on the Bidens and the Democrats.

What Trump acknowledged doing is prima facie evidence of unethical behavior. He wanted a foreign country to investigate a political rival"a clear conflict of interest for a sitting president. The only fact in dispute is whether the "favor" Trump asked of Ukraine amounted to a quid pro quo in exchange for the foreign aid (which had already been approved). This has been proven as well, in my opinion, and this is the key in raising the degree of impropriety to the point that Trump is subject to impeachment and removal.

#12 | Posted by cbob at 2019-11-21 04:52 PM | Reply

Can you imagine if he told Zelensky to do the wrong thing?

LOL

#13 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-11-22 01:16 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"If #3 isn't bribery according to the now fashionable Democrat definition .. I don't know what is.
#4 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS"

Bribery now has a statutory definition, www.law.cornell.edu

However, the statute is irrelevant to bribery espoused in the impeachment clause of the Constitution because it or an equivalent did not exist. The Founders had a much broader conception of the term based on the common law, violation of the public trust for private gain.

Is that more descriptive of the reporting of Biden's actions or of the Buffoon's?

#14 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-22 03:19 AM | Reply

If Zelensky were to actually do the right thing he would publicly tell the truth about the withholding of military assistance and how many Ukrainians died because of it. But, he's not in a position to tell the truth because he needs our aid and he knows Trump can turn off the faucet any time he wants. He's basically being held hostage by Trump and he knows it.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-22 08:37 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I do have to say one thing though about Biden, his handling of the situation in Ukraine and his son's profiteering from his relationship with his father disqualifies both from high office. If Biden gets the nomination, which I don't think he will, I will stay home and not vote at all in the election. I don't think he is necessarily corrupt but his son damn sure is and he allowed him to profit from a poor nation that he never even visited. Sorry, I'm not a Republican, I still care about right and wrong. The Biden's probably broke no laws but what they did was absolutely wrong and I won't give them a pass just because Joe is a Democrat. Not to mention he is owned by the banking industry so I would never vote for him for President anyway.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-22 08:43 AM | Reply

Most. Corrupt. President. Ever.
(And NO, I am not voting for Biden)

#17 | Posted by e1g1 at 2019-11-22 08:46 AM | Reply

#14 | POSTED BY ET_AL

But, if you follow the statutory definition, then Trump committed bribery. He is a "public official" that "directly or indirectly" "corruptly demands" "[something] of value personally" for "being influenced in the performance of any official act".

The only thing I am unsure about is whether he falls under the definition of "public official" as this statute defines it, but it is clear that he is covered under the constitutional definition. So we can all agree that he is a "public official".

Did he corruptly demand something of value personally? Well, it pretty clear that he demanded the announcement of the investigation into the Bidens. Was that something he would "value personally"? I believe that we can all agree he "values" being re-elected personally. And that having a public announcement of Joe Biden being under investigation would contribute towards him being re-elected.

Did he "corruptly" demand it though? I don't actually know what the definition of "corruptly" in this context actually is, but it seems to me it is going to intent. If he were to "demand" something in the course of US policy that happened to benefit him personally (like they accuse Biden of, getting the prosecutor fired furthered US policy but, "supposedly", personally benefited Joe Biden's son) then that would not be "bribery" because he had a legitimate reason to demand it. But, if it was solely for personal gain, then it would be "corruptly" demanded.

Finally, I think we can all agree that giving Ukraine aid or scheduling a presidential visit are both "official acts".

I see where people could possibly argue that what Trump did was not "bribery", but it is a very big stretch considering the testimony that has come out.

#18 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-22 09:14 AM | Reply

I don't think he is necessarily corrupt but his son damn sure is and he allowed him to profit from a poor nation that he never even visited.

#16 | POSTED BY DANNI

He "allowed him" to profit off Ukraine? How could he have stopped him?

I have a good relationship with my dad, but if he told me what I was "allowed" to do in my personal life I would tell him where he could shove it. I am an adult and can make my own decisions. And I HAVE that good relationship with my dad BECAUSE he was a good parent and WOULD NOT tell me (as an adult) what I was and was not "allowed" to do.

And I am detecting a little racism from you as well. You don't think the Ukrainians are smart enough to make their own decisions? That they are inferior and so cannot be trusted make good decisions without Americans like you protecting them? That, by the way, was one of the biggest justifications for racial slavery in the US. I don't think that Hunter Biden took advantage of the poor natives in Ukraine. They are adults and can make their own decisions. THEY may have had corrupt intentions in hiring Hunter Biden, but they are fully capable of making their own decisions and I don't think he was taking advantage of a "poor nation".

I would not vote for Hunter Biden for any elected office. But, as far as I can tell, Biden handled this situation with his son with integrity. His choice was either be a bad parent, or piss off people like you. He chose to be a good parent. I think he made the right decision. If you think that is worth letting Trump get re-elected (if Biden happens to win the nomination) then that is YOUR choice. Just know that is the CHOICE that YOU are making and take responsibility for it.

#19 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-22 09:31 AM | Reply

To clarify... I am not planning on voting for Biden in the primary. I was not planning on voting for him even before all of this BS with Burisma and his son came out.

But if he does win the nomination, then I WILL vote for him over Trump.

#20 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-22 09:32 AM | Reply

Obviously it wasn't for the personal/political benefit of a single US politician.
And just as obvious, you don't know that.
#5 | Posted by Hans at 2019-11-21 10:48 AM

Neither was Trump's request. Pence would also benefit. As would down-ticket candidates. Where you taking those goalposts now?

#21 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-11-22 10:41 AM | Reply

"Neither was Trump's request."

You've got to be a total moron to watch Trump meet with Erdogan, Kim, Putin, Netanyahu, and MBS, and now believe Trump is interested in corruption, just that he waited three years, and a situation involving his chief political rival, to start.

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-22 10:46 AM | Reply

"his chief political rival"

Biden is a walking self-retorting machine. I think he posts here as Moder8.

LOL

#23 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-11-22 01:02 PM | Reply

You've got to be a total moron to watch Trump meet with Erdogan, Kim, Putin, Netanyahu, and MBS, and now believe Trump is interested in corruption, just that he waited three years, and a situation involving his chief political rival, to start.#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-22 10:46 AM

Wow, what an exciting non-sequitur.

The goalposts that Hans relocated is that Biden's actions weren't bribery because they weren't for the benefit of only a single politician. I correctly pointed out that neither was Trump's action. Gave the examples of the other politicians that would make it no for just the benefit of a single politician, then wondered where he would attempt to move the goalposts now to try to disprove the notion that Biden had engaged in bribery.

I hope that you have caught up.

#24 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-11-22 01:32 PM | Reply

"neither was Trump's action."

Total and complete nonsense. Trump was out for Trump. If anyone else benefited, that's a moot side issue.

"disprove the notion that Biden had engaged in bribery."

Ask Rob Portman (R) and Ron Johnson (R).

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-22 01:44 PM | Reply

#24 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Biden got the prosecutor fired for the benefit of the US. He was furthering a US policy. Also, there has been no evidence presented that Biden personally benefited from it. And there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that him benefiting was his motivation. Just conjecture and assumption.

Trump would personally benefit from an investigation into Biden being announced. There is no requirement in the definition of "bribery" that you be the ONLY person who benefits. I don't know why you had that impression, but you might want to actually read up on what bribery is before you embarrass yourself more. Here is the statutory definition for reference (the constitutional definition could be different or more encompassing, but this is a good starting point)...

www.law.cornell.edu

#26 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-22 02:33 PM | Reply

Fox & Friends Challenges Trump on Ukraine Conspiracy Theory: Are You Sure They Did That?'

Trump's former homeland security adviser Tom Bossert recently dismissed the theory and expressed frustration that the president's lawyer Rudy Giuliani was pushing it.

"It's not only a conspiracy, it is completely debunked," Bossert said in an interview on ABC News. "And at this point, I am deeply frustrated with what he and the legal team is doing and repeating that debunked theory to the president. It sticks in his mind when he hears it over and over again and for clarity here ... let me just again repeat that it has no validity."


www.mediaite.com

#27 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-22 02:40 PM | Reply

#24 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Are you not aware Biden was making the demands that he did at the behest of B. Hussein?

If anything, this is B. Hussein's issue, Biden was just the henchman.

But nobody on the Right wants to make that connection for one, single obvious reason: B. Hussein is NOT campaigning for president. Biden is.

Which completely explains why this Biden bribery issue has not raised it's head until AFTER he declared his 2020 presidential campaign.

How convenient for the Trumpers. AAAAAAND how convenient for B. Hussein. The only reason he's not being excoriated for this is because he's not running for POTUS.

You people think everyone is ------- stupid; that will be your side's ultimate downfall.

#28 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-22 02:43 PM | Reply

And there's this little tidbit:

Charges of Ukrainian Meddling? A Russian Operation, U.S. Intelligence Says

Moscow has run a yearslong operation to blame Ukraine for its own 2016 election interference. Republicans have used similar talking points to defend President Trump in impeachment proceedings.

#29 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-22 04:04 PM | Reply

#18 | Posted by gtbritishskull

Look at the definition of "official act." Then look at this case interpreting that definition. www.scotusblog.com

The definition of bribery at the Founding is much broader.

#30 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-22 10:48 PM | Reply

And there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that him benefiting was his motivation. Just conjecture and assumption.
Trump would personally benefit from an investigation into Biden being announced. - #26 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-22 02:33 PM

That is also conjecture and assumption.

#31 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-11-23 02:54 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort