Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexasEd
TexasEd

I voted for Trump/Against Hilary Clinton.   He should be impeached for: Extortion of a foreign government by withholding military assistance to an ally (and benefitting Russia) in exchange

Paul Wesley
Paul Wesley

I'm a couple pages back in this fast-moving thread, but I wanted to respond to this.   I'm pretty close to you in demographics, and I was also a child who echoed his parents' pro-Reagan stance, a

Tailgate
Tailgate

Unreal. Biden’s son can take home $1m a year from a Ukrainian company he knows nothing about...but our president acts like the CEO of a company with leverage in cutting deals and this shit happens?

Posted Images

atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89788

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

Hmm. I wonder where @GRHorn with this WSJ piece?

 

That's completely lost on all of the Trumpkins - see it on TexAgs, Free Republic, Facebook, etc. - none of them are denying that Trump tried to do what he did.  

No, it's "He didn't finish so it doesn't count!" (which applies to a lot of things in his life Melania.gif)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

Hmm. I wonder where @GRHorn with this WSJ piece?

 

I didn’t think y’all needed me to post columns that agree with the groupthink here. Seems like there’s dozens of posters champing at the bit to do that.
 

Noonan disagrees with her editors. Good for her. Nice to see a media outlet that has different viewpoints. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

Hmm. I wonder where @GRHorn with this WSJ piece?

 

yeah i made a similar point several days ago. the two people they keep complaining they can’t call as witnesses are hunter biden and the whistleblower. even under the most ideal dream gop scenario, these two are not in position to be rebuttal witnesses for the facts laid out. if that doesn’t prove republicans’ intent, nothing will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11364

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

No, it's "He didn't finish so it doesn't count!"

So are they also in favor of releasing Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, since they didn't succeed with their terror plots..."the planes landed, didn't they?"

No harm no foul - gop

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 27601

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I didn’t think y’all needed me to post columns that agree with the groupthink here. Seems like there’s dozens of posters champing at the bit to do that.
 

Noonan disagrees with her editors. Good for her. Nice to see a media outlet that has different viewpoints. 

I'll go get Hewitt from the Wapo if it makes you feel better. But, I ain't spending a dime with Murdoch. I'm not against hearing from the opposition. In previous cycles I've had nothing good to say about Peggy Noonan, R. Wilson, or  Frum. She was fine with Reagan and the GOP until there was Trump. It's highly likely that I'll disagree with her again, but she's right about this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Tuco said:

I am way more interested in learning about Lev's relationship with Giuliani and Trump.  With Nunes, I think it is likely that he was working with Giuliani on chasing down the imaginary Ukrainian interference, and so Rudy pointed him to people that could help.  I think Nunes is a grade-A moron, but I haven't read anything that makes me think there is something more sinister than that.  It does show that Nunes was engaged in the same bullshit that Rudy was, and that Rudy was directing him.  But it seems like Rudy was the focal point. With Rudy, there is cash flow.  There is access to the President.  There is the interference and direction of official acts. 

That being said, I don't think for a minute that Lev has really flipped.  If he was flipping, he'd be doing it quietly and looking for witness protection. He has way too much to lose in Ukraine to play rat to Firtash. It's not like Lev is staring at 30 years for a murder charge.  I think Firtash might be rattling Trump's cage, looking for the goods he has already made considerable payments on.  It's even possible Firtash has decided to fuck Trump after being stiffed. But, it's possible that Lev could be looking to provide misleading information to muddy the waters.  A couple of fake documents could do a lot to unwind public trust in the impeachment.  The Dems need to move forward with extreme caution. 

Nunes <- >Parnas <-> Giuliani/Trump  (add Barr for good measure)

They all appear to be a part of this corruptly conceived snipe hunt by Russian intelligence re 2016 Ukraine interference.

what's one of the surest ways to get people in power to act a fool ? 

follow the money:

Nunes 2016-18 cycle "unitemized donations" = $25,038

Nunes 2019-20 cycle "unitemized donations" = $3,102,309 so far

 

Probably a good idea to dig into those 50+ bank accounts tied to Lev Parnas to find out if any cash ended up with someone willing to act a fool.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
Spoiler

As a public service, herewith a handy-dandy guide to those widely touted Trump impeachment charges or insinuated charges that hold water so far, and those that don’t. Spoiler alert: The single alleged presidential transgression that I believe would warrant impeachment – and removal from office – comes at the end of this post. And not just because I want to create a teaser. It’s mainly because this specific transgression has received almost no attention as such. Revealingly, moreover, many of the President’s defenders have been just as seemingly inept as his assailants at focusing on what would legitimately satisfy the Constitution’s impeachment and removal requirements and what wouldn’t.

Canard Number One: Mr. Trump’s focus on investigations of the Biden family reveals a simple determination to smear a political rival. Two problems should consign this allegation to the dumpster. First, as I’ve previously noted, it can only be based on the assumption that Americans (and especially sitting or previously serving politicians) should be immune from corruption investigations simply because they decided to seek office – or seek it again. Unless you want to illuminate brightly a formula for green-lighting massive corruption, you’ll recognize the dangers of this proposed standard.

Second, this claim ignores (a) the distinct possibility that, given the Obama administration point-man role played by Vice President Joe Biden, the Ukrainian energy entity Burisma was seeking to influence peddle when it handed his son, Hunter, a highly lucrative position, and (b) the troubling questions raised both by Biden senior’s knowledge of this development and by the former Vice President’s failure to act to end a situation that at the very least created the appearance of conflict of interest.

Canard Number Two: Mr. Trump’s strong interest in investigating the Biden situation – and his statements to the effect that he cared more about these probes than about Ukraine – shows that he cares more about his own political fortunes than about U.S. national security. Anyone holding this belief apparently considers the fate of a country whose security or independence was never a prime American concern even during the Cold War is (ipso facto?) more important than possible foreign influence peddling at the highest levels of a previous administration. I’m glad I don’t have to make this argument.

Canard Number Three (Similar to Canard Number Three): The President’s assertion that Ukraine interfered against his campaign for the White House in 2016 reveals that he selfishly cares more about his own political fortunes, or about further discrediting the Russia collusion charges that have dominated his presidency so far, than about U.S. national security. As contended above, Ukraine was never regarded as a significant national security interest even when completely controlled by a Soviet regime that for decades was classified officially as a paramount threat to both U.S. and global security. Why it should be regarded as more important today is anything but clear. Moreover, Americans have spent most of the first half of the Trump presidency hearing that the greatest threat to not only their security but their democracy itself is foreign government interference in elections.  Therefore, it’s at best odd to start hearing that Ukraine interference doesn’t matter at all.

 

REPORT THIS AD

Canard Number Four: There was no Ukraine 2016 election interference. As I’ve previously pointed out, anti-Trump statements from Ukraine’s then ambassador to the United States and its powerful Interior Minister are on the record. Just as important: Nor does it withstand serious scrutiny to counter that these statement were isolated and therefore trivial – a claim made by fired U.S. Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during her open impeachment testimony last Friday. Would senior officials like these felt free to speak out so blatantly if their views weren’t widespread Ukraine governing circles? And does it stand to reason that no one reporting to them played any such roles?

Canard Number Five: President Trump was trying to “bully” Ukraine. Unfortunately, international relations still remains a realm where the law of the jungle is much more common than the rule of law as Americans know it. So tough tactics are both nothing new and often needed.

Canard Number Six: President Trump sought a quid pro quo from Ukraine. An alternative description of this charge: “President Trump wanted Ukraine to do something for the United States in return for the United States doing something for Ukraine.” It’s actually true that many of Mr. Trump’s critics strongly oppose such an approach to U.S. foreign policy, denigrating it as “transactional” and presumably not worthy of a truly great nation. But this position – a hallmark of the globalism that the President ran strongly against, and continues to oppose strongly in word and often in deed – stems from a belief that the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy should be to preserve the alliances, institutions, and other relationships whose creation defined so much of post-World War II foreign policy.

That’s an entirely legitimate point of view. But it’s just as legitimate – and, as I’ve written, far more realistic – to seek to ensure above all that these arrangements continue promoting American interests on net, to monitor them on an ongoing basis, to press for change when they fail this test, and to abandon them when their potential to do so is judged to be exhausted. So not only is there nothing intrinsically wrong with seeking quid pros quo in foreign policy. The world as it is makes them unavoidable.

Canard Number Seven: Mr. Trump was bullying Ukraine and/or seeking a quid pro quo by threatening to withhold military aid approved by Congress and signed into law. Here we get closer to impeachment charges that do deserve scrutiny. But this allegation still qualifies as a canard – to date, anyway – because it leaves unanswered the central questions of whether the “bullying” or any type of improper pressure took place or the “quid pro quo” was pressed for reasons that “rise to the level of impeachment” or not – or that even come close. And most of the President’s opponents and supporters have done an equally poor job of keeping their eyes on these balls.

 

REPORT THIS AD

Revealingly, even the answers presented that seem to sink the President deep into hot water don’t support a serious impeachment case. Here, for the reasons stated above, I’m deliberately leaving out the allegations that Mr. Trump was illegitimately trying to find some dirt on Biden, and/or reinforcing the legitimacy of his own 2016 victory.

Nevertheless, what gave Mr. Trump the authority to establish even substantively legitimate conditions – however explicitly or implicitly – on the Ukraine aid package? To which the first response is, “What’s meant by ‘established conditions’?” Let’s say that the President’s accusers are entirely correct and that the disbursement of the aid was delayed. So what?

In the first place, there’s nothing in the law stipulating any specific date for releasing the funds other than the end of the fiscal year, which fell on September 30. And as all agree, they were released by then. In other words, from all appearances, there was no Ukraine aid suspension in the first place.

Moreover, all the evidence available so far also demonstrates that the Trump administration’s aid delay decision itself followed the law – although somewhat belatedly. According to Defense Department career official Laura Cooper – in remarks that have not yet been challenged – in her closed door testimony to House investigators, a suspension of Ukraine aid would not be illegal either if the administration had formally notified Congress of a “rescission” of the funds or of a decision to redirect (“reprogram”) them for other purposes. She added that she made these points to Trump administration officials at a July 31 meeting. By late August, though, the Associated Press reported, House Appropriations Committee staff members received this notification from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

In the second place, what’s intrinsically illegal or even improper about Mr. Trump either asking for an add-on, or even threatening to deny the aid if the Ukrainians didn’t agree to conduct the investigation?

One explanation I found compelling was offered by Yovanovitch’s replacement as chief U.S. envoy to Kiev, William Taylor, in his closed door October 22 testimony to House of Representatives investigators. Taylor stated that he was told by U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland – an Oregon businessman and major Trump campaign donor – that the Trump decision owed to a practice from the President’s business career:

 

REPORT THIS AD

“When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. Ambassador [Kurt] Volker [another long-time diplomat, who had served as a special Ukraine envoy in the Trump administration] used the same terms several days later while we were together at the Yalta European Strategy Conference.”

Not that Taylor himself found the reasoning compelling. But although he claimed that the “the explanation made no sense” because “the Ukrainians did not ‘owe’ President Trump anything,” and certainly has a right to this opinion, it sounds like more a reflection of what might be his own overly precious view of the proper way to conduct American diplomacy than like an objectively devastating critique of Mr. Trump. Someone with a less gentlemanly perspective might well have concluded that the President was simply trying to press an advantage to secure an objective he believed furthered U.S. interests that were at least as important as helping Ukraine resist Russian designs.

Which is where one widely cited problem with the anti-Trump narrative comes in. To begin with, it’s been difficult to figure out when the Ukraine aid hold was actually put into effect, but the reference in this article in Politico (an early account of the decision to “last summer” (the summer of 2019) seems about right. (The New York Times subsequently pegged the date as “early July,” but neither claim has been confirmed.) While questioning Yovanovitch during her public appearance at the House of Representative impeachment hearings, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes identified July 18 as the start of the hold). The Times also contends that the Ukrainians found out about the freeze “by the first week of August.”

Even if this finding is correct, however, it’s clear that one of the strangest episodes in the history of blackmail and quids pro quo in general must have taken place. For the President evidently had decided to hold Ukraine’s military future for ransom but never told Kiev it was being extorted. Indeed, the Ukrainians didn’t even learn at that time – roughly a month after the suspension had gone into effect – that they were being placed over a barrel through any official administration channels. They seem to have found out via leaks, at least according to The Times story linked above. It was not until September 1 that the policy was communicated officially to its supposedly intended target– by Sondland in a meeting with a top aide to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. And even Sondland’s language was strangely vague.

 

REPORT THIS AD

Now it’s true that starting in early August, the Ukrainians could have begun taking these leaks, put them together with whatever they knew about Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani’s activities in their country and Mr. Trump’s unmistakable interest in a Biden probe, and detected a message about a gun being held to their head. But the surreptitious nature of these efforts could have also indicated that the administration’s resolve on this matter was anything but firm, and that some modest gestures would have gotten them off the hook. In fact, in his closed door testimony, Taylor himself indicated at his closed door House appearance that he would have been satisfied with Ukraine making the public investigations announcement sought by Mr. Trump through its Prosecutor General, rather than its President. So despite his later headline-making characterization of the link as “crazy,” he was obviously prepared to let it slide for a pittance.

Which is where a second widely cited problem with the pro-impeachment narrative needs to be considered: The aid went through on time, and no one in the Ukraine government made any investigations-related announcement at all.

Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff from California, who’s leading the impeachment efforts, has a ready retort: As he stated at the open impeachment hearing he chaired last Friday, the Trump administration had no choice, because it was being pressured by members of both the House and Senate to release the hold, and because it had received the whistleblower’s report and realized that the (impeachment?) boom was about to be lowered. And Schiff’s Texas Democratic colleague, Joaquin Castro, argued at the October 22 public hearing that “attempted freeze” (my phrase) should be considered a crime because attempted murder is a crime.

But again, the legislation appropriating the aid mentioned no deadline other than the September 30 deadline for all appropriations measures. That deadline was met – by September 11, meaning that the delay lasted at most a little over two months. What the President’s critics are calling blackmail might have been nothing more than a case of trying to take advantage of leverage over a foreign country to achieve a goal (investigating high level corruption by a previous administration) understandably viewed as legitimate by the President – a practice prohibited by exactly no U.S. law. Schiff’s charge is also easily rebutted with the distinct possibility that the Trump administration saw the September 30 deadline coming and decided that securing a public Ukraine commitment to investigate the Bidens simply wasn’t worth the candle.

 

REPORT THIS AD

But however flawed these widely used anti-Trump arguments, based on what’s known so far, the President’s critics do have one potentially stronger impeachment arguments to make. The first would involve a charge that the President was knowingly persuaded by Giuliani to fire Yovanovitch as ambassador to Kiev in May because she was in the process of finding out about Giuliani’s own efforts to make money in Ukraine for his other clients (or even for the President?) in illegal ways.

A big problem with this charge is that, although Yovanovitch did impute these motives to Giuliani in her opening statement at last Friday’s public hearing, she offered no evidence to support her allegation. Indeed, she agreed with a Republican staffer’s question that she was replaced by a Trump administration appointee who was a “man of high integrity” who would not “facilitate” Giuliani’s supposed objectives – none other than William Taylor. She also testified that she had never met the Giuliani associates whose motives she denigrated, and didn’t know whether their ostensibly crooked ambitions were being “frustrated” by whatever anti-corruption policies she says she was pushing.

In addition, it must be noted that this personal corruption charge has received almost no attention from impeachment supporters in Congress or elsewhere in American politics and society.

All of which appears to mean that pro-impeachment and/or removal arguments depend on proving a proposition from Schiff that itself is convoluted and confusing enough to verge on incoherence and even flim-flammery – whether we’re talking purely legal/criminal standards or not.

Specifically, even though the hold was lifted in time to meet the statutory requirement, the President reversed course only involuntarily (either for fear of being exposed by the whistleblower’s complaint or of dangerously antagonizing influential House and Senate members who supported the aid). Therefore, for either some of the two months, or most of the two months, or all of the two months during which the aid suspension lasted, Mr. Trump demonstrated that his intent was uninfluenced by any legitimate concerns (like ferreting out non-Russian 2016 foreign election interference or Biden family corruption) and as a result was solely corrupt – and met impeachment and/or removal standards.

Of course, no one can rule out further discoveries of significantly worse Trump deeds. But unless they’re made, a House vote to impeach would amount to nothing more than an affirmation of former President Gerald R. Ford’s 1970 contention (when he was House Minority Leader) that “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.

And the all too likely result? A normalization and weaponization of this process that even the Trump-ly Deranged shouldn’t want to see.

A few days old, but another viewpoint different from the consensus here.

https://alantonelson.wordpress.com/2019/11/18/im-politic-the-case-against-impeachment-so-far/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18946

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, GRHorn said:
  Reveal hidden contents

As a public service, herewith a handy-dandy guide to those widely touted Trump impeachment charges or insinuated charges that hold water so far, and those that don’t. Spoiler alert: The single alleged presidential transgression that I believe would warrant impeachment – and removal from office – comes at the end of this post. And not just because I want to create a teaser. It’s mainly because this specific transgression has received almost no attention as such. Revealingly, moreover, many of the President’s defenders have been just as seemingly inept as his assailants at focusing on what would legitimately satisfy the Constitution’s impeachment and removal requirements and what wouldn’t.

Canard Number One: Mr. Trump’s focus on investigations of the Biden family reveals a simple determination to smear a political rival. Two problems should consign this allegation to the dumpster. First, as I’ve previously noted, it can only be based on the assumption that Americans (and especially sitting or previously serving politicians) should be immune from corruption investigations simply because they decided to seek office – or seek it again. Unless you want to illuminate brightly a formula for green-lighting massive corruption, you’ll recognize the dangers of this proposed standard.

Second, this claim ignores (a) the distinct possibility that, given the Obama administration point-man role played by Vice President Joe Biden, the Ukrainian energy entity Burisma was seeking to influence peddle when it handed his son, Hunter, a highly lucrative position, and (b) the troubling questions raised both by Biden senior’s knowledge of this development and by the former Vice President’s failure to act to end a situation that at the very least created the appearance of conflict of interest.

Canard Number Two: Mr. Trump’s strong interest in investigating the Biden situation – and his statements to the effect that he cared more about these probes than about Ukraine – shows that he cares more about his own political fortunes than about U.S. national security. Anyone holding this belief apparently considers the fate of a country whose security or independence was never a prime American concern even during the Cold War is (ipso facto?) more important than possible foreign influence peddling at the highest levels of a previous administration. I’m glad I don’t have to make this argument.

Canard Number Three (Similar to Canard Number Three): The President’s assertion that Ukraine interfered against his campaign for the White House in 2016 reveals that he selfishly cares more about his own political fortunes, or about further discrediting the Russia collusion charges that have dominated his presidency so far, than about U.S. national security. As contended above, Ukraine was never regarded as a significant national security interest even when completely controlled by a Soviet regime that for decades was classified officially as a paramount threat to both U.S. and global security. Why it should be regarded as more important today is anything but clear. Moreover, Americans have spent most of the first half of the Trump presidency hearing that the greatest threat to not only their security but their democracy itself is foreign government interference in elections.  Therefore, it’s at best odd to start hearing that Ukraine interference doesn’t matter at all.

 

REPORT THIS AD

Canard Number Four: There was no Ukraine 2016 election interference. As I’ve previously pointed out, anti-Trump statements from Ukraine’s then ambassador to the United States and its powerful Interior Minister are on the record. Just as important: Nor does it withstand serious scrutiny to counter that these statement were isolated and therefore trivial – a claim made by fired U.S. Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during her open impeachment testimony last Friday. Would senior officials like these felt free to speak out so blatantly if their views weren’t widespread Ukraine governing circles? And does it stand to reason that no one reporting to them played any such roles?

Canard Number Five: President Trump was trying to “bully” Ukraine. Unfortunately, international relations still remains a realm where the law of the jungle is much more common than the rule of law as Americans know it. So tough tactics are both nothing new and often needed.

Canard Number Six: President Trump sought a quid pro quo from Ukraine. An alternative description of this charge: “President Trump wanted Ukraine to do something for the United States in return for the United States doing something for Ukraine.” It’s actually true that many of Mr. Trump’s critics strongly oppose such an approach to U.S. foreign policy, denigrating it as “transactional” and presumably not worthy of a truly great nation. But this position – a hallmark of the globalism that the President ran strongly against, and continues to oppose strongly in word and often in deed – stems from a belief that the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy should be to preserve the alliances, institutions, and other relationships whose creation defined so much of post-World War II foreign policy.

That’s an entirely legitimate point of view. But it’s just as legitimate – and, as I’ve written, far more realistic – to seek to ensure above all that these arrangements continue promoting American interests on net, to monitor them on an ongoing basis, to press for change when they fail this test, and to abandon them when their potential to do so is judged to be exhausted. So not only is there nothing intrinsically wrong with seeking quid pros quo in foreign policy. The world as it is makes them unavoidable.

Canard Number Seven: Mr. Trump was bullying Ukraine and/or seeking a quid pro quo by threatening to withhold military aid approved by Congress and signed into law. Here we get closer to impeachment charges that do deserve scrutiny. But this allegation still qualifies as a canard – to date, anyway – because it leaves unanswered the central questions of whether the “bullying” or any type of improper pressure took place or the “quid pro quo” was pressed for reasons that “rise to the level of impeachment” or not – or that even come close. And most of the President’s opponents and supporters have done an equally poor job of keeping their eyes on these balls.

 

REPORT THIS AD

Revealingly, even the answers presented that seem to sink the President deep into hot water don’t support a serious impeachment case. Here, for the reasons stated above, I’m deliberately leaving out the allegations that Mr. Trump was illegitimately trying to find some dirt on Biden, and/or reinforcing the legitimacy of his own 2016 victory.

Nevertheless, what gave Mr. Trump the authority to establish even substantively legitimate conditions – however explicitly or implicitly – on the Ukraine aid package? To which the first response is, “What’s meant by ‘established conditions’?” Let’s say that the President’s accusers are entirely correct and that the disbursement of the aid was delayed. So what?

In the first place, there’s nothing in the law stipulating any specific date for releasing the funds other than the end of the fiscal year, which fell on September 30. And as all agree, they were released by then. In other words, from all appearances, there was no Ukraine aid suspension in the first place.

Moreover, all the evidence available so far also demonstrates that the Trump administration’s aid delay decision itself followed the law – although somewhat belatedly. According to Defense Department career official Laura Cooper – in remarks that have not yet been challenged – in her closed door testimony to House investigators, a suspension of Ukraine aid would not be illegal either if the administration had formally notified Congress of a “rescission” of the funds or of a decision to redirect (“reprogram”) them for other purposes. She added that she made these points to Trump administration officials at a July 31 meeting. By late August, though, the Associated Press reported, House Appropriations Committee staff members received this notification from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

In the second place, what’s intrinsically illegal or even improper about Mr. Trump either asking for an add-on, or even threatening to deny the aid if the Ukrainians didn’t agree to conduct the investigation?

One explanation I found compelling was offered by Yovanovitch’s replacement as chief U.S. envoy to Kiev, William Taylor, in his closed door October 22 testimony to House of Representatives investigators. Taylor stated that he was told by U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland – an Oregon businessman and major Trump campaign donor – that the Trump decision owed to a practice from the President’s business career:

 

REPORT THIS AD

“When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. Ambassador [Kurt] Volker [another long-time diplomat, who had served as a special Ukraine envoy in the Trump administration] used the same terms several days later while we were together at the Yalta European Strategy Conference.”

Not that Taylor himself found the reasoning compelling. But although he claimed that the “the explanation made no sense” because “the Ukrainians did not ‘owe’ President Trump anything,” and certainly has a right to this opinion, it sounds like more a reflection of what might be his own overly precious view of the proper way to conduct American diplomacy than like an objectively devastating critique of Mr. Trump. Someone with a less gentlemanly perspective might well have concluded that the President was simply trying to press an advantage to secure an objective he believed furthered U.S. interests that were at least as important as helping Ukraine resist Russian designs.

Which is where one widely cited problem with the anti-Trump narrative comes in. To begin with, it’s been difficult to figure out when the Ukraine aid hold was actually put into effect, but the reference in this article in Politico (an early account of the decision to “last summer” (the summer of 2019) seems about right. (The New York Times subsequently pegged the date as “early July,” but neither claim has been confirmed.) While questioning Yovanovitch during her public appearance at the House of Representative impeachment hearings, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes identified July 18 as the start of the hold). The Times also contends that the Ukrainians found out about the freeze “by the first week of August.”

Even if this finding is correct, however, it’s clear that one of the strangest episodes in the history of blackmail and quids pro quo in general must have taken place. For the President evidently had decided to hold Ukraine’s military future for ransom but never told Kiev it was being extorted. Indeed, the Ukrainians didn’t even learn at that time – roughly a month after the suspension had gone into effect – that they were being placed over a barrel through any official administration channels. They seem to have found out via leaks, at least according to The Times story linked above. It was not until September 1 that the policy was communicated officially to its supposedly intended target– by Sondland in a meeting with a top aide to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. And even Sondland’s language was strangely vague.

 

REPORT THIS AD

Now it’s true that starting in early August, the Ukrainians could have begun taking these leaks, put them together with whatever they knew about Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani’s activities in their country and Mr. Trump’s unmistakable interest in a Biden probe, and detected a message about a gun being held to their head. But the surreptitious nature of these efforts could have also indicated that the administration’s resolve on this matter was anything but firm, and that some modest gestures would have gotten them off the hook. In fact, in his closed door testimony, Taylor himself indicated at his closed door House appearance that he would have been satisfied with Ukraine making the public investigations announcement sought by Mr. Trump through its Prosecutor General, rather than its President. So despite his later headline-making characterization of the link as “crazy,” he was obviously prepared to let it slide for a pittance.

Which is where a second widely cited problem with the pro-impeachment narrative needs to be considered: The aid went through on time, and no one in the Ukraine government made any investigations-related announcement at all.

Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff from California, who’s leading the impeachment efforts, has a ready retort: As he stated at the open impeachment hearing he chaired last Friday, the Trump administration had no choice, because it was being pressured by members of both the House and Senate to release the hold, and because it had received the whistleblower’s report and realized that the (impeachment?) boom was about to be lowered. And Schiff’s Texas Democratic colleague, Joaquin Castro, argued at the October 22 public hearing that “attempted freeze” (my phrase) should be considered a crime because attempted murder is a crime.

But again, the legislation appropriating the aid mentioned no deadline other than the September 30 deadline for all appropriations measures. That deadline was met – by September 11, meaning that the delay lasted at most a little over two months. What the President’s critics are calling blackmail might have been nothing more than a case of trying to take advantage of leverage over a foreign country to achieve a goal (investigating high level corruption by a previous administration) understandably viewed as legitimate by the President – a practice prohibited by exactly no U.S. law. Schiff’s charge is also easily rebutted with the distinct possibility that the Trump administration saw the September 30 deadline coming and decided that securing a public Ukraine commitment to investigate the Bidens simply wasn’t worth the candle.

 

REPORT THIS AD

But however flawed these widely used anti-Trump arguments, based on what’s known so far, the President’s critics do have one potentially stronger impeachment arguments to make. The first would involve a charge that the President was knowingly persuaded by Giuliani to fire Yovanovitch as ambassador to Kiev in May because she was in the process of finding out about Giuliani’s own efforts to make money in Ukraine for his other clients (or even for the President?) in illegal ways.

A big problem with this charge is that, although Yovanovitch did impute these motives to Giuliani in her opening statement at last Friday’s public hearing, she offered no evidence to support her allegation. Indeed, she agreed with a Republican staffer’s question that she was replaced by a Trump administration appointee who was a “man of high integrity” who would not “facilitate” Giuliani’s supposed objectives – none other than William Taylor. She also testified that she had never met the Giuliani associates whose motives she denigrated, and didn’t know whether their ostensibly crooked ambitions were being “frustrated” by whatever anti-corruption policies she says she was pushing.

In addition, it must be noted that this personal corruption charge has received almost no attention from impeachment supporters in Congress or elsewhere in American politics and society.

All of which appears to mean that pro-impeachment and/or removal arguments depend on proving a proposition from Schiff that itself is convoluted and confusing enough to verge on incoherence and even flim-flammery – whether we’re talking purely legal/criminal standards or not.

Specifically, even though the hold was lifted in time to meet the statutory requirement, the President reversed course only involuntarily (either for fear of being exposed by the whistleblower’s complaint or of dangerously antagonizing influential House and Senate members who supported the aid). Therefore, for either some of the two months, or most of the two months, or all of the two months during which the aid suspension lasted, Mr. Trump demonstrated that his intent was uninfluenced by any legitimate concerns (like ferreting out non-Russian 2016 foreign election interference or Biden family corruption) and as a result was solely corrupt – and met impeachment and/or removal standards.

Of course, no one can rule out further discoveries of significantly worse Trump deeds. But unless they’re made, a House vote to impeach would amount to nothing more than an affirmation of former President Gerald R. Ford’s 1970 contention (when he was House Minority Leader) that “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.

And the all too likely result? A normalization and weaponization of this process that even the Trump-ly Deranged shouldn’t want to see.

A few days old, but another viewpoint different from the consensus here.

https://alantonelson.wordpress.com/2019/11/18/im-politic-the-case-against-impeachment-so-far/

Donald Trump is setting a ton of precedents that Republicans aren't going to like when the next Democrat occupies the White House.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irwin F Fletcher

Irwin F Fletcher 3550

Posted
Posted

We all know all it takes is one poke and Trump will fly off the deep end. Heck, he was on Fox News this morning raving like a lunatic. The House will move to impeach, that should again create some good drama for Trump watchers. He was quoted today saying he is looking forward to it, though that will change in a tweet next week when reality sinks in again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The bolded is false.  And the thing that makes it false is what makes it important.

Ukraine didn't have to investigate Biden and Burisma.  They only had to ANNOUNCE the investigation.  The verb matters.  That verb distinction tells us that in no way was this about corruption.  Rather it was ONLY about public perception, which is a political goal.

You're not stateless.  You are aligned against a hostile power called Trumpism.  There's a shitload of us.  Get on board.  Fight hard. Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?

Bravo.

Here's an easy way to think about it -- say this out loud, Republicans:

"The President can remove an Ambassador because:

1) the Ambassador won't make a personal gift to him of $1,000,000

2) the Ambassador refused to appoint the President's daughter as "Assistant Ambassador for handbags"

3) the Ambassador refused to solicit payments from a foreign country to the president

4) the Ambassador refused to ask a foreign power to kill an American who insulted the president next time that American visited the country

5) the Ambassador refused to solicit a foreign country's sabotage of an American political party's computer system

6) the Ambassador refused to solicit the statement of a foreign country that it was investigating the opposing political party's nominee

We can do this all day.  There's fucking PLENTY of circumstances where the president's action would constitute an illegal act.  It might be bribery.  It might be a campaign violation.  IT might be murder.  All are laws.  All are broken by the listed actions.

What we know is....the GOP doesn't care.  Make no mistake, there is only one law in the mind of the GOP: if the GOP does it, it's legal.

I already am on board.  I voted almost straight ticket D in the last election.  It helped that the major candidates were likeable.

But I am going to require a party of governmental financial sanity sooner rather than later.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18946

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I already am on board.  I voted almost straight ticket D in the last election.  It helped that the major candidates were likeable.

But I am going to require a party of governmental financial sanity sooner rather than later.

You are never going to get that party in the United States of America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105318

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I already am on board.  I voted almost straight ticket D in the last election.  It helped that the major candidates were likeable.

But I am going to require a party of governmental financial sanity sooner rather than later.

You've lived your ENTIRE life without one (the one you THOUGHT was for "fiscal responsibility" was running a shameful con the whole time).  Get used to not having one.  And quit looking for a unicorn to ride off into the sunset.

Seriously, it's hard reality-check time for everyone.

 

EDIT -- man, I was SLOW.  I wasn't even the first to make a unicorn reference.

Edited by Brisketexan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yuk

Yuk 1558

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

We all know all it takes is one poke and Trump will fly off the deep end. Heck, he was on Fox News this morning raving like a lunatic. The House will move to impeach, that should again create some good drama for Trump watchers. He was quoted today saying he is looking forward to it, though that will change in a tweet next week when reality sinks in again.

It's his insecurity.  He has a sliver of doubt (knowing how all the R's probably hate him) that things may change in a hurry.  It does give me comfort to know that at least he's stressing over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105318

Posted
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

A post-depression phenomenon mostly.  Even for corporations.

And you damned well know that the "largesse" that's killing us isn't direct benefit payments to poor folks.  It's subsidies, funneling massive defense dollars, etc., to corporate interests.  Hell, even the "direct benefit payments" to poor folks just make a short stop in their pockets before they end up in their intended home: corporate agribusiness, large property owner entities, etc.

We've been funneling money to corporate interests for a long-ass time.  It's just in the past few years that they've gotten bold enough to stand in front of us, shove cash in their pockets and say "fuck you bitch, what are you gonna do to stop me?"

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

And you damned well know that the "largesse" that's killing us isn't direct benefit payments to poor folks.  It's subsidies, funneling massive defense dollars, etc., to corporate interests.  Hell, even the "direct benefit payments" to poor folks just make a short stop in their pockets before they end up in their intended home: corporate agribusiness, large property owner entities, etc.

We've been funneling money to corporate interests for a long-ass time.  It's just in the past few years that they've gotten bold enough to stand in front of us, shove cash in their pockets and say "fuck you bitch, what are you gonna do to stop me?"

I do.  There's more benefits flowing from the federal government to all kinds of recipients and people vote accordingly.  And also lobby and bribe accordingly.

While it's gone on at one scale or another since 1789, it expanded wildly during the latter half of the 20th century and so is a "now" thing.  

Warren's plans, if enacted, stand to reduce spending in some areas by reduction of corruption.  Unfortunately, I don't believe it will result in reduction of the debt, or even the deficit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105318

Posted
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I do.  There's more benefits flowing from the federal government to all kinds of recipients and people vote accordingly.  And also lobby and bribe accordingly.

While it's gone on at one scale or another since 1789, it expanded wildly during the latter half of the 20th century and so is a "now" thing.  

Warren's plans, if enacted, stand to reduce spending in some areas by reduction of corruption.  Unfortunately, I don't believe it will result in reduction of the debt, or even the deficit.

The debt and deficit as a concern are overrated.  But even more importantly, they are a distraction wrapped in a fucking lie.  They are only talked about by the GOP, who just flat-out lie about them to trick suckers into voting for them.

What you want isn't someone who will tackle the debt/deficit.  We just need someone who can have an honest conversation about it.

For now, let's stop committing suicide.  We'll work on long-term treatment plans after that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The debt and deficit as a concern are overrated.  But even more importantly, they are a distraction wrapped in a fucking lie.  They are only talked about by the GOP, who just flat-out lie about them to trick suckers into voting for them.

What you want isn't someone who will tackle the debt/deficit.  We just need someone who can have an honest conversation about it.

For now, let's stop committing suicide.  We'll work on long-term treatment plans after that.

Don't disagree.  You're preaching to the choir.  Hence why I request a political party of some stripe that will not completely ignore it, which is a classically conservative concern, if not ever or recently a GOP one.

It's kind of amusing that the current debauchery of the GOP is making everyone act like the Democratic Party is this model of moral and governmental perfection.  Relatively speaking and now, it's a whole lot better, but it's not without its own faults.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...