Prez lawyer Jay Sekulow tears apart Schiff’s repeated Ukraine ‘quid pro quo’: ‘Notice what’s not in impeachment’

If the original allegation against Trump isn't even in the articles, what are we going here?

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?



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.

“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


Survival Legion Tee: $21.99 Black


2
Leave a Reply

avatar
2 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
Deb
Guest
Deb

It does not seem so bad to me to make sure that before you give something to someone that you know they are not corrupt. By asking the Ukrainian President to clean up his government before his government gets our tax dollars paid for weapons, sounds like good judgement to me. Just because biden happens to be running for prez does not or should not give him a pass at corruption. WE know his corruption, out of his own mouth. Do not allow investigation of corruption of my son’s company. Even if son was not part of it, even if… Read more »

Jack
Guest

Articles of Impeachment 1. Abuse of power ( For executing Presidential Plenary Powers granted in Article II of the US Constitution) Not a crime 2. Obstruction of Congress ( for going to the courts to protect Executive Privilege, aka Separation of Powers ) Not a crime Notice there is no actual stated-specifically stipulated crime committed – no direct listing of stipulated acts of “quid pro quo”, bribery, extortion, etc, let alone no stipulated specific acts of Russia collusion and obstruction charges in these Impeachment Articles, where not 1 iota piece of concrete evidence after 3 years of search and destroy… Read more »

%d bloggers like this: