By Jon Dougherty
(TNS) Lest we not forget, at the center of the Democrats’ original impeachment allegations against President Donald Trump is the charge that he sought something on from the Ukrainian government in exchange for nearly $400 billion worth of U.S. military aid.
A quid pro quo, in other words. And what was it?
- Check out “The CATASTROPHIC CURRENCY RESET: Where to be in the U.S. and Abroad When The SHTF” — download for FREE in Crisis Reports
The Democrats’ establishment media continually report that Trump ‘demanded’ Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky investigate ‘his political rival,’ former Vice President Joe Biden along with son Hunter Biden.
That was the claim of the original ‘whistleblower,’ we’ve been told — the same one who met with House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) before ‘coming forward.’
The president and House Republicans have refuted this claim over and over again. Trump authorized the release of the transcript of his July 25 phone call with Zelensky, much to the surprise of just about everyone on Capitol Hill. And during impeachment inquiry testimony in October, U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland specifically testified the president “wanted nothing” from Ukraine.
“On September 9, 2019 … I asked the president: ‘What do you want from Ukraine?’ The president responded, ‘Nothing. There is no quid pro quo.’ The president repeated, ‘No quid pro quo’ multiple times. This was a very short call. And I recall the president was in a bad mood,” he said.
Furthermore, Sondland, who was deeply involved in U.S.-Ukrainian affairs in his position, also said he didn’t recall discussions with the White House about withholding security assistance from Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Biden.
“To the best of my recollection, I do not recall any discussions with the White House on withholding U.S. security assistance from Ukraine in return for assistance with the President’s 2020 re-election campaign,” he testified.
So what are we doing here? There was not ‘quid pro quo’ included in one of the two articles of impeachment against the president.
And yet, Schiff, a House impeachment manager, mentioned the phrase repeatedly during an address to the Senate on Wednesday.
Presidential lawyer Jay Sekulow noted that in remarks to reporters. He said the reason why quid pro quo was noteworthy is that the president is not being impeached on the act since it is not one of the two articles of impeachment.
A majority of Democrats in the House voted to impeach Trump on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Adam Schiff is entitled to his own fairy tales, but not his own facts.
Amb. Gordon Sondland's "quid pro quo" statement fell apart under pointed GOP questioning during the House Intel Committee hearing.
He was forced to admit he was presuming things.
Let's tell the truth here. pic.twitter.com/JxSy88rFdj
— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) January 22, 2020
“There’s a lot of things I’d like to rebut and we will rebut. I think we said it yesterday, first of all, you notice that Adam Schiff today talked about quid pro quo. Notice what’s not in the articles of impeachment. Allegations or accusations of quid pro quo,” Sekulow said.
“That’s because they didn’t exist. So, you know, there is a lot of things we’ll rebut but we will do it in an orderly and I hope more systematic fashion.”
He added that it wasn’t clear if the president’s defense team would need the full 24 hours they’re being allotted to refute all of the Democrats’ BS.
Our republic has come to a point where one major party is now completely animated and motivated by political power rather than constitutional guidance and precedence. That’s a huge problem.
- We need your help to grow, pure and simple. Share our stories, make sure to tell your friends about this site, and click the red bell in the right corner for push notifications.
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY? COMMENT BELOW