The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

"I said, 'You’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in --,' I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said, 'I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.' Well, son of a b----. He got fired, and they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

But in this case, it was actually said.

Let's assume for the moment that RealTool isn't simply making this up.

So what is wrong with a quid pro quo to further U.S. interests? That's how things are done to further U.S. interests. Biden got rid of a universally reviled, corrupt prosecutor that supported stealing U.S. aid to Ukraine to put it in private hands.

Now, Tool, why don't you tell us the problem with a quid pro quo to further personal political interests at the cost of U.S. security? That is the actual issue that you always fail to address because all you have is desperate diversions from the ugly truth. You can't show where Biden did anything wrong, so you try to conflate what Biden did with what Trump did.

But that's comparing apples and lug nuts. You just can't pull it off unless you're talking to imbeciles.

" quid pro quo "....Trump did nothing wrong ...
that's why the Demos don't mention it in articles of impeachment..
But they keep howling at the moon hoping the voters think he did...!

Mulvaney admitted the Trump quid pro quo over Ukraine on national TV ....."get over it."

What is it that you dimwitted Trumpers don't understand?

Mulvaney admitted the Trump quid pro quo over Ukraine on national TV

WOW quid pro quo was said on TV by a real person. Trump asked Ukraine to do America a favor and investigate possible corruption involving American tax money. Trump didn't ask anything in return. Millions of dollars was spent to come to that exact factual conclusion.

Ukraine had already started an investigation, and Ukraine never even knew the billion in aid was delayed 55 days (a far shorter time than for Obama).

The real question is whether Trump should have given the billion at all, and dolts like Vindman and Sondland should have pondered that but didn't.

The billion is likely already in the pocket of some corrupt person.

T

The billion is likely already in the pocket of some corrupt person.

The Joe and his coke head son, who else? Hunter resigned??
You don't think they would let the Ukrainians off that easy do you?

"The real question is whether Trump should have given the billion at all,..."-johnfibs

No, dummy, the Pentagon (per U.S. law) had already cleared Ukraine for receiving aid, verifying that sufficient steps had been taken to curb corruption.

If you don't think our military is qualified to ascertain who should be qualified to receive U.S. military aid, then who is, johnny?

It is also illegal to withhold such authorized aid more than 48 days per U.S. law. That's just one more law Trump broke before he got caught and was forced to release the aid. Trump would have held it indefinitely if the whistle hadn't been blown on him.

Clown, you are missing the point in spectacular fashion.

Democrats are pretending it is important to give 1 billion in military aid to Ukraine, but that is absurd because America's borders are more important to taxpayers than Ukraine's borders.

Also, Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe, and money sent there has doubtless already been diverted into the wallets of crooks.

Hunter and his corrupt pals were apparently involved in money laundering from Ukraine to Cyprus to Latvia to their own pockets.