There are text messages, apparently.The Bill Taylor who got all his information via someone else?
By what standard is it known that for quid pro quo to be proven, the victim must acknowledge it?That is whataboutism and irrelevant.
The only thing that is relevant is that Adam Schitt does not have evidence of a Quid Pro Joe and the Impeachment Hoax is moving on.
" That’s according to a cache of text messages released late Thursday by House investigators which lay out the raw contours of a potential quid-pro-quo exchange "There are text messages, apparently.
Ukraine aid delay irked lawmakers for weeks, but Trump told some about ‘quid pro quo,’ says HASC chairAs President Trump held Ukraine military aid, lawmakers say they were kept in the dark.www.defensenews.com
They have no evidence that there is a "that" .....By what standard is it known that for quid pro quo to be proven, the victim must acknowledge it?
Quid pro quo literally means "this for that."
If, at any point, Trump administration representatives communicated to Ukraine that they'd have to investigate Biden to receive aid, a quid pro quo occurred.
Ukraine DID NOT have to agree to anything for that above action ^ to have been fundamentally wrong.
Are you asserting that such a conversation never took place? Because Sondland has confirmed it did, and Taylor and Vindman have confirmed immediate knowledge of it.
John Ratcliffe is fully discredited. He lied on his resume and was disqualified from serving as DNI on that basis.They have no evidence that there is a "that" .....
The Quid Pro Joe is dead in the water.
The Leaker is no longer relevant and will not be testifying.
Rep. John Ratcliffe explained this a couple of weeks ago.
I started a thread on it.
President Trump and his allies in Congress pushed back against damaging revelations from diplomat Bill Taylor’s Tuesday testimony – in which the Ukraine envoy said the administration linked U.S. military aid to a call for politically related investigations in Kiev – saying the witness also...politicalhotwire.com
John Ratcliffe comments are accurate.John Ratcliffe is fully discredited. He lied on his resume and was disqualified from serving as DNI on that basis.
Answer the question. By what standard is it known that the victim must acknowledge a quid pro quo?
Quid pro quo is a form of extortion and bribery. I can't help you if you fundamentally don't understand what's at stake here.John Ratcliffe comments are accurate.
There is no evidence of a Quid Pro Quo as evidence by Adam Schitt and company abandoning the accusation and moving on to bribery and obstruction.
But, you keep hanging on to the idea that there is.
I bet you still believe that the Mueller Report proves Trump colluded with the Russians, don't you?
It doesn't matter what those Deep Staters accuse the President of.Quid pro quo is a form of extortion and bribery. I can't help you if you fundamentally don't understand what's at stake here.
Sondland has confirmed that he communicated to the Ukranians that they would have to publicly commit to investigating the Democrats to receive the aid.
Taylor and Vindman have confirmed that Ukraine wanted to know why their aid was being withheld, and that they were pressured to hide the reason why.
That's established. It just is.
Please try to say things that are a little less explicitly stupid. Sondland donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration. He is no "Deep State" figure.It doesn't matter what those Deep Staters accuse the President of.
If they have no evidence of a Quid Pro Quo then thier accusations are meaningless.
I see another Mueller report day coming for you ....