Whether Dems call it ‘quid pro quo’ or ‘bribery,’ Trump did NOT threaten Ukraine for self-gain

(TNS) Because the Garbage Party thinks so little of the intelligence of President Donald Trump’s voters, the geniuses in charge of Democratic messaging regarding their fake impeachment scandal have dropped “quid pro quo” and have begun using the term “bribery” to describe his alleged actions with Ukraine.



Party apparatchiks must think that voters are too educationally challenged to understand the Latin term quid pro quo and are much more likely to get what ‘bribery’ means.

Plus, it sounds so much more…sinister.

Once again, we feel the need to remind readers — not that you need it — of the transcript the White House released regarding President Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in which there was a) no quid pro quo; b) no threat to withhold military aid; and c) certain no “bribery.”

Why else would Democrats change the wording? Because the Constitution defines “bribery” as an impeachable offense, and you know, if the Democrats and their propagandist media say the word often enough, the president somehow magically committed bribery.

Lawfare notes:

In fact, the Founders had a broader conception of bribery than what’s in the criminal code. Their understanding was derived from English law, under which bribery was understood as an officeholder’s abuse of the power of an office to obtain a private benefit rather than for the public interest. This definition not only encompasses Trump’s conduct—it practically defines it.

What thing of value did Trump obtain? Assistance in outing the Bidens as the corrupt swamp rats they are, of course.

But wait…isn’t Trump obligated under the law to ensure that Ukraine is making progress in battling corruption before he is authorized to release any form of aid — military or financially?

Why, yes. Yes, he is.

“In 2016, Congress began requiring a certification for a portion of the funds from the congressionally-created Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. [P.L. 114-328, FY2017 NDAA]. To spend more than half of the authorized funds, DOD, in coordination with the State Department, must certify that certain anti-corruption reforms have taken place. The eligible amount has varied based on authorizations, but, for FY2019, $125 million was subject to certification,” the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee’s ranking member’s office said in a press release last month.

The ranking member went onto claim that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Defense Department did certify that Ukraine was making progress on corruption so Trump had no legal grounds to delay military aid.

But…did he? The aid was delivered, after all. And anyway, Ukrainian officials have said they had no idea aid had even been delayed.

“The New York Times unwittingly confirmed the veracity of the GOP argument that there could be no quid pro quo because Ukraine did not know the United States had delayed the release of aid for the Eastern European country at the time of the July 25 call,” a Breitbart article explained

So if the Ukrainians didn’t know, how could Trump have possibly committed an act of bribery? Or ‘quid pro quo?’

  • We need your help to grow, pure and simple. If you like our big balls approach to defending President Trump and our republic, share our stories, make sure to tell your friends about this site, and click the red bell in the right corner for push notifications. We don’t do a regular ‘newsletter’ anymore because it gets blocked. 

GOT SOMETHING TO SAY? COMMENT BELOW



1
Leave a Reply

avatar
1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
Notify of
.50cal
Guest
.50cal

Bribery? Quid pro blow me!

Stupid fux. GTFO with this horseshit!

%d bloggers like this: