There are some serious questions about the “quid pro quo” story. And those questions come from both the whistleblower report and the NYT reporting AND the blown ABC story today.
Let's begin with the whistleblower report. The report states:
Let's begin with the whistleblower report. The report states:
Notice, the WHISTLEBLOWER is stating that Ukraine may not have been aware that military aid was threatened at the time of the infamous phone call (they learned in early August, apparently). So how can there be a quid pro quo when the target DOESN’T KNOW HE’S BEING THREATENED?
Next, the New York Times reported this just three days ago:
This confirms the whistleblower report. Again, if the Ukrainians didn’t know that Trump was threatening aid, with what, precisely was he threatening them? More importantly, why haven’t the media been focusing on this angle? (I think we know the answer.)
Finally, the blown ABC report. They claimed that a Ukrainian adviser to Zelenskyy had said that Zelenskyy was aware that Trump wanted Biden or bust. But then the advisor completely walked that back and said he was essentially repeating media rumors.
So, here’s what we’re left with: speculation about an aid-based quid pro quo in a transcript -- speculation openly rebutted by the whistleblower report, an NYT source, and this Ukrainian advisor to Zelenskyy. That’s pretty weak tea.
