Help me get this straight. I'm their hearing on the news that

[Lint Head]

the GOP plank was changed the day before Hillary's emails were released. If true this is circumstantial evidence beyond doubt. The plank said that the GOP President, if elected, would be harder than Obama on Russia because of the invasion. If that's not quid pro quo I don't know what is. This is Criminal bullshit.

[bravenak]

1. We aint never seen no shit like this.

[lapfog_1]

2. what, you don't believe in co-winky-dink?

[California_Republic]

3. I'm confused

They changed it to be harder... or they removed the we will be harder?

[sarah FAILIN]

4. originally they were going to offer weopons for defense

Trump said no...

Trump staffers in the room, who are not delegates but are there to oversee the process, intervened. By working with pro-Trump delegates, they were able to get the issue tabled while they devised a method to roll back the language.

On the sideline, Denman tried to persuade the Trump staffers not to change the language, but failed. “I was troubled when they put aside my amendment and then watered it down,” Denman told me. “I said, ‘What is your problem with a country that wants to remain free?’ It seems like a simple thing.”

Finally, Trump staffers wrote an amendment to Denman’s amendment that stripped out the platform’s call for “providing lethal defensive weapons” and replaced it with softer language calling for “appropriate assistance.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.a1cc5420ff7d

[Lint Head]

7. Thanks for clarifying this. I heard the story on MSNBC.

I couldn't remember the exact details or the link to the newspaper article. Thanks.

[KingCharlemagne]

6. They (Trump's goons) removed language fom the Republican platform affirming

support for a free Ukraine and promising to defend it if Putin invaded.

The 64-million-dollar question is whether there was a quid pro quo for the platfom language change. it there was and Trump's fingerprints are anywhere near it, he goes to jail for violating the Logan Act (among other offenses). j.J. Gordon is alleging that he was at a meeting presided over by Sessions that Trump attended where the policy change was batted about and decided upon. So the question remains whether this was done as a quid pro quo.

it's why we need a Special Prosecutor (or even an Independent Counsel, a la Lawrence Walsh or Archibald Cox).

[sarah FAILIN]

8. I would say there was quid pro quo

Emails were released shortly after.

[KingCharlemagne]

9. Correlation is not necessarily proof of a quid pro quo, but it

suggests the need for more investigation with power of subpoenas.

[sarah FAILIN]

10. We are out of luck then.

They are not going to decide to tell the truth because someone got a subpeona

[KingCharlemagne]

11. The threat of jail time for the little fish does wonders to help net the bigger

fish. That's how it worked in Watergate and how it will work here.

[Cosmocat]

5. WAIT, is this right?

Nm