I don’t have access to the WSJ article. All I have is CNN’s reporting on the WSJ reporting, which, like much of what CNN does, is likely false. Here’s what they wrote:
You can probably understand how that’s different from what you linked to, but just in case there’s some mystery, Biden isn’t mentioned on Page 3 at all. Your cite’s first five references have nothing to do with “look[ing] into the Bidens and their connections in the Ukraine”.
Now, as I’ve mentioned, it’s possible that CNN is wrong and the WSJ reported the matter more accurately. Does anyone know what the WSJ actually said?
All your going on about how the initial reporting was inaccurate and you haven’t even read it? You appear to be ill-equipped to be participating in this discussion.
“illegal things”? “the law”? You’re doing it wrong. We’re talking about impeachment, which is a political process, not a legal one. Richard Parker had the right idea (for your side) earlier in this thread. You’d do well to heed his advice.
Just a few days ago, I opined that it was hard to imagine the whistleblower complaint would turn out to be anything this egregious (and that scenario was actually slightly less extreme than what the White House has now admitted to!) and that if it did, it was hard to imagine that it wouldn’t get 10 to 20 Republican senators voting for removal. Now I am shocked, as Adam Schiff said today, that the White House would think this transcript would work in their favor. We have absolutely crossed the Rubicon, and if this isn’t impeachable I give up.
Can you once and for all just plant a flag in the ground ahead of time and let us know what magic phrase had to be uttered and how many times it had to be said for you to come around to understand what is pretty painfully obvious from that transcript?
Under the guise of looking into Pence, certain people will just happen to ‘coincidentally’ discover evidence on Hunter Biden. “Thank goodness we were patriotic enough to probe into our Vice-President’s dealings with Ukraine. We were amazed to find what we did - not on him, but on Mr. Biden!”.
I will say, the Mueller testimony seemed to have had one positive effect on the case against Trump as this call was just one day after Mueller’s “disappointing” testimony.
It was either Michael Cohen or James Comey (maybe both) who wrote that when Trump arranges for his henchmen to do sleazy things for him, he speaks in mobster-type code, never explicitly saying what the sleazy deal is in so many words, because everyone knows what he wants done. So he keeps saying “no quid pro quo” and Fox chimes in with “no direct mention of funding” and he wonders why it’s having no effect. It’s having no effect because most of us have seen gangster movies and know the lingo. If the orange moron was in a different line of business, say protection racketeering, and had been secretly recorded saying to a business owner, “nice place you got here, would be a shame if anything happened to it”, he’d probably want the recording released as proof of his innocence, because obviously he was just complimenting the proprietor on the niceness of his establishment.
I hope they also added:
Not that a quid pro quo is required for your so-called president to have wiped his ass with his so-called oath of office, ha ha!
Best friends,
Ukraine
That’s pretty devastating. And I’m kind of imagining some Ukrainian officials being thrown under Ukrainian buses, Trump style, for leaking this kind of stuff. Because judging from that phone call, Zelensky himself appears to be a sycophantic Trump toady, having been suitably bribed.
But let’s zoom out for a second here: Trump puts the hold on Ukraine aid in advance of the phone call, has the phone call, and still doesn’t release the aid. Why?
Reports are that Bolton and the Pentagon are urging the aid to be released. If there is no quid pro quo, why not release it?
Or… is it because that Zelensky didn’t hand over the smokking gun (or however Trump spells it) that links Hillary’s emails to Hunter Biden to Warren’s birth certificate to the child sex ring at the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlor?
Clearly, this story is not told only through this phone call. As damning as it is, there’s more to be learned here.
That’s funny, your article doesn’t say anything about “quid pro quo”. It says they understood it as a “precondition”. Do you understand that those are two different things?
