|
Post by lar on Oct 3, 2019 10:51:45 GMT -5
He's actually Andy Kaufman, isn't he? When a reporter asked Trump what he wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to do about the Bidens during the infamous phone call in July, Trump bluntly admitted that he wanted Ukraine to investigate his political rival.
“Well I would think if they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the Bidens,” he said. “It’s a very simple answer.”
“Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens,” Trump added. “Because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”
It was another stunning example of the President of the United States outright calling on a foreign power to inflict political damage on his rival. Trump’s efforts to strong-arm the Ukrainian president to drum up phony allegations against Biden have formed the basis for House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
Besides baseless conspiracy theories about Biden and Ukraine, Trump and his allies have also repeatedly claimed that Hunter Biden made shady deals in China.
During a Fox News interview in May, Trump demanded an investigation into Biden’s alleged ties to China. However, he didn’t push China itself to conduct the potential investigation at the time.
I'm having some trouble following the logic of this post. You lead off with ". . . Trump bluntly admitted that he wanted Ukraine to investigate his political rival." Then you called it ". . . another stunning example of the President of the United States outright calling on a foreign power to inflict political damage on his rival." I fully understand the first remark. The second remark looks like a distortion of the first without any hint of how "investigate" became "inflict political damage". It seems to me that the outcome of such an investigation is not pre-ordained. Otherwise, why have an investigation at all? Would Trump's call for an investigation be viewed differently if the subject was not a political rival? If so, why? I'm also having some trouble with the charge that Trump tried to "strong arm" Zelensky to drum up phony allegations against Biden. My reading of the transcript shows only that Trump requested Ukraine to investigate Biden. I don't see a request to drum up phony allegations. While I think it's clear that Trump did provide some pressure the term "strong arm" seems like overkill. As I've written before, the description provided by the transcript shows what I would call a typical business conversation. I have no doubt that similar conversations occur frequently between heads of state or high ranking administration officials and their counterparts. For example, does it seem unlikely that at some point in time the U.S. has had similar conversations and has pressured other countries to lend more support to the U.S. strategy towards Iran? How many of those conversations would be seen as grounds for impeachment? In the end, the impeachment inquiry has begun. It will play out how it plays out and I expect articles of impeachment to be sent to the senate regardless of my opinion. My concern, and this is a bipartisan concern, is that this particular impeachment inquiry takes us farther down the path of non-cooperation between Democrats and Republicans. I don't think that's good for the country or for the future of our government.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 3, 2019 10:59:30 GMT -5
In the end, the impeachment inquiry has begun. Actually, it hasn't. Everyone has been so wrapped up in this, that the fact that the House has not actually voted to conduct an impeachment inquiry seems to have slipped under the radar. All this is a nothing more than a bunch of standing committees doing what they always do. Those committees can use the word "impeachment" as go about their business (as they could have at any time over the past three years, which is to say, nothing changed on 9/25), but procedurally (eg, Nixon and Clinton), there needs to be a vote of the House before a formal impeachment inquiry begins. Also noteworthy in all this sturm and drang that none of those committees have issued any actual subpoenas relative to any of this.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 3, 2019 12:03:36 GMT -5
Lar, Trump is a master of deniability, and it's all over the conversation with Zelenskyy. Here are classic examples of Trumpspeak:
"The [Crowdstrike] server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation."
"they say a lot of it started with Ukraine"
"A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved."
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. . . ."
Note the vagueness, the "they say" constructions, all of which provide deniability--"I didn't say X, only Y." "It's not me saying these things, just, you know, other people." Classic rules-lawyering and weasel-wording. It's one of Trump's standard modes, the other being direct insult, name-calling, and bullying.
BTW, Zelenskyy's language is crawling and submissive and even echoes some Trumpisms ("I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people.") He very clearly wants to make nice with a powerful ally ("I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us"), and maybe even actually admires and identifies with Trump as a fellow underdog/swamp-drainer.
As far as "quid pro quo" goes, this is the heart of it, and it's clear how it can be read as a request for an exchange of favors:
Z: We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
T: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike...
It's hard not to read Trump's "though" as suggesting a trade--it not only immediately follows the mention of the missiles, it signals a condition: do us a favor, and the favor is to "find out what happened."
Of course, what I'm doing here is a reading of the transcript, as though it were a literary or dramatic text--I've watched our neice run lines in preparation for a play, looking for the underlying logic of the script, and this is my line-run. Would it stand up in court? Nope--which is the point of language designed for deniability--it's all in the context, the performance, the implications. Which is one reason Schiff translated the conversation into mobster-speak.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 3, 2019 12:30:18 GMT -5
"Of course, what I'm doing here is a reading of the transcript, as though it were a literary or dramatic text-" as you wish it had been. Very Schiffish of you.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 3, 2019 12:54:36 GMT -5
He's actually Andy Kaufman, isn't he? When a reporter asked Trump what he wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to do about the Bidens during the infamous phone call in July, Trump bluntly admitted that he wanted Ukraine to investigate his political rival.
“Well I would think if they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the Bidens,” he said. “It’s a very simple answer.”
“Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens,” Trump added. “Because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”
It was another stunning example of the President of the United States outright calling on a foreign power to inflict political damage on his rival. Trump’s efforts to strong-arm the Ukrainian president to drum up phony allegations against Biden have formed the basis for House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
Besides baseless conspiracy theories about Biden and Ukraine, Trump and his allies have also repeatedly claimed that Hunter Biden made shady deals in China.
During a Fox News interview in May, Trump demanded an investigation into Biden’s alleged ties to China. However, he didn’t push China itself to conduct the potential investigation at the time.
I'm having some trouble following the logic of this post. You lead off with ". . . Trump bluntly admitted that he wanted Ukraine to investigate his political rival." Then you called it ". . . another stunning example of the President of the United States outright calling on a foreign power to inflict political damage on his rival." I fully understand the first remark. The second remark looks like a distortion of the first without any hint of how "investigate" became "inflict political damage". It seems to me that the outcome of such an investigation is not pre-ordained. Otherwise, why have an investigation at all? Would Trump's call for an investigation be viewed differently if the subject was not a political rival? If so, why? I'm also having some trouble with the charge that Trump tried to "strong arm" Zelensky to drum up phony allegations against Biden. My reading of the transcript shows only that Trump requested Ukraine to investigate Biden. I don't see a request to drum up phony allegations. While I think it's clear that Trump did provide some pressure the term "strong arm" seems like overkill. As I've written before, the description provided by the transcript shows what I would call a typical business conversation. I have no doubt that similar conversations occur frequently between heads of state or high ranking administration officials and their counterparts. For example, does it seem unlikely that at some point in time the U.S. has had similar conversations and has pressured other countries to lend more support to the U.S. strategy towards Iran? How many of those conversations would be seen as grounds for impeachment? In the end, the impeachment inquiry has begun. It will play out how it plays out and I expect articles of impeachment to be sent to the senate regardless of my opinion. My concern, and this is a bipartisan concern, is that this particular impeachment inquiry takes us farther down the path of non-cooperation between Democrats and Republicans. I don't think that's good for the country or for the future of our government. Presidents do not call on foreign powers to investigate their political opponents. Not on private phone calls. Not in front of the press. To do so is, implicitly, a call for them to tamper with the election that will be happening in the United States in 2020. In fact, every nation on earth is now on alert that if they dig up dirt on Biden (or Warren, or Sanders, or ANYBODY), that the current US government will be quite pleased. This is trading power for political advantage at a level that ought to be breathtaking to any casual observer. This does not seen remotely complicated to me. If I am wrong, maybe somebody can tell me anytime a POTUS has engaged in this type of behavior.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 3, 2019 13:05:01 GMT -5
Presidents do not call on foreign powers to investigate their political opponents. I'm curious about this. Suppose instead of Biden, the subject of the call had been some random guy. Not a politician. Does that change anything?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 3, 2019 13:09:52 GMT -5
I'm having some trouble following the logic of this post. You lead off with ". . . Trump bluntly admitted that he wanted Ukraine to investigate his political rival." Then you called it ". . . another stunning example of the President of the United States outright calling on a foreign power to inflict political damage on his rival." I fully understand the first remark. The second remark looks like a distortion of the first without any hint of how "investigate" became "inflict political damage". It seems to me that the outcome of such an investigation is not pre-ordained. Otherwise, why have an investigation at all? Would Trump's call for an investigation be viewed differently if the subject was not a political rival? If so, why? I'm also having some trouble with the charge that Trump tried to "strong arm" Zelensky to drum up phony allegations against Biden. My reading of the transcript shows only that Trump requested Ukraine to investigate Biden. I don't see a request to drum up phony allegations. While I think it's clear that Trump did provide some pressure the term "strong arm" seems like overkill. As I've written before, the description provided by the transcript shows what I would call a typical business conversation. I have no doubt that similar conversations occur frequently between heads of state or high ranking administration officials and their counterparts. For example, does it seem unlikely that at some point in time the U.S. has had similar conversations and has pressured other countries to lend more support to the U.S. strategy towards Iran? How many of those conversations would be seen as grounds for impeachment? In the end, the impeachment inquiry has begun. It will play out how it plays out and I expect articles of impeachment to be sent to the senate regardless of my opinion. My concern, and this is a bipartisan concern, is that this particular impeachment inquiry takes us farther down the path of non-cooperation between Democrats and Republicans. I don't think that's good for the country or for the future of our government. Presidents do not call on foreign powers to investigate their political opponents. Not on private phone calls. Not in front of the press. To do so is, implicitly, a call for them to tamper with the election that will be happening in the United States in 2020. In fact, every nation on earth is now on alert that if they dig up dirt on Biden (or Warren, or Sanders, or ANYBODY), that the current US government will be quite pleased. This is trading power for political advantage at a level that ought to be breathtaking to any casual observer. This does not seen remotely complicated to me. If I am wrong, maybe somebody can tell me anytime a POTUS has engaged in this type of behavior. Here's all you need to know: arizonadailyindependent.com/2019/09/29/treaty-with-ukraine-on-mutual-legal-assistance-in-criminal-matters/
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 3, 2019 13:12:02 GMT -5
Presidents do not call on foreign powers to investigate their political opponents. I'm curious about this. Suppose instead of Biden, the subject of the call had been some random guy. Not a politician. Does that change anything? I'd need a hypothetical, and can't think of one. My mind is still hurting from the fact that anybody can think what Trump said this morning is in any possible way, OK, or that it does not scream as to his lack of fitness for the office he holds.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 3, 2019 13:17:52 GMT -5
I'm curious about this. Suppose instead of Biden, the subject of the call had been some random guy. Not a politician. Does that change anything? I'd need a hypothetical, and can't think of one. My mind is still hurting from the fact that anybody can think what Trump said this morning is in any possible way, OK, or that it does not scream as to his lack of fitness for the office he holds. Let's say for the hypothetical, Christopher Steele?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 3, 2019 13:31:31 GMT -5
I'm curious about this. Suppose instead of Biden, the subject of the call had been some random guy. Not a politician. Does that change anything? I'd need a hypothetical, and can't think of one. My mind is still hurting from the fact that anybody can think what Trump said this morning is in any possible way, OK, or that it does not scream as to his lack of fitness for the office he holds. I get that's where you're coming from. I'm just looking for clarity. I can see three possible reasons to object to the contents of the Trump-Ukraine call: 1) He solicited cooperation in an inter-governmental criminal investigation. 2) The subject of the criminal investigation in question was a political opponent. 3) There was a quid-pro-quo involved in the solicitation. My question is what happens if you take #2 out of the equation. What happens if the subject of the investigation is not politically involved in any way?
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Oct 3, 2019 13:37:05 GMT -5
As usual there are two completely different narratives to choose from. Most here all in in on the WaPo, NYT, CNN narrative. I have heard a few snippets from the alternative narrative as promulgated by John Solomon of the Hill and Trump's lawyer, RG.
Two, wildly divergent versions of reality.
All I can say is file your impeachment and let's get everyone involved under oath or STFU.
I'll give my $0.02. Right out of the box Trump was a traitor, should be impeached, colluded, blah, blah, blah. Some of the main actors in this current play said those things in no uncertain terms. Well... it didn't happen. Total bullshit. Rather than being held to account for their previous assertions, those are quickly set aside and the new round of assertions and charges have taken their place with all their gravitas and credibility intact- former bullshit discounted.
Meanwhile the investigation into how the "collusion" investigation came to be is slowly proceeding one FOIA and lawsuit at time by reporters and organizations such as Judicial Watch and on the QT by Barr and Durham.
I think Rudy is claiming that the interaction with Ukraine is tangential to that investigation (could be wrong about that- didn't pay that much attention). Also he is asserting that Schiff helped craft the whistle blower complaint.
Who is lying? I dunno. Put their asses under oath and let's see. File your GD charges and go to trial or focus on winning the election. I'm tired of hearing this hyped up shit.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 3, 2019 13:51:42 GMT -5
I'd need a hypothetical, and can't think of one. My mind is still hurting from the fact that anybody can think what Trump said this morning is in any possible way, OK, or that it does not scream as to his lack of fitness for the office he holds. Let's say for the hypothetical, Christopher Steele? Did Trump ask a foreign government to investigate Michael Steele? That's odd.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 3, 2019 13:53:08 GMT -5
I'd need a hypothetical, and can't think of one. My mind is still hurting from the fact that anybody can think what Trump said this morning is in any possible way, OK, or that it does not scream as to his lack of fitness for the office he holds. Let's say for the hypothetical, Christopher Steele? Sorry Peter. You've just raised a false equivalency. That's a major no-no in today's world. Haven't you been paying attention? Hillary Clinton's campaign at least partially funded the Steele Dossier. The idea was to find negative information about Trump. The result was a document that contained claims that could not be substantiated. Clinton was not president at the time, although she hoped to be. There's your false equivalency. You can't compare the actions of a candidate to a sitting president. And don't you dare bring up the fact that the house ways and means committee has issued subpoenas for Trump's tax returns based on nothing more than the conviction, without evidence, that there must be something there the president is hiding. On the other hand, you have the president repeating rumors that the press claim have been discredited, and trying to get Ukraine and China to investigate. There is no similarity there. None at all. I am appalled and dismayed at the state of politics in this country. A relative handful of people in D.C. are elected to provide for the protection and welfare of 30 million or so Americans. How is it that those elected officials could have set themselves so high and so far apart from the vast throng of people who elected them? And why does it seem that they are incapable of carrying out their singular task without tearing each other apart?
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 3, 2019 13:54:39 GMT -5
I'd need a hypothetical, and can't think of one. My mind is still hurting from the fact that anybody can think what Trump said this morning is in any possible way, OK, or that it does not scream as to his lack of fitness for the office he holds. I get that's where you're coming from. I'm just looking for clarity. I can see three possible reasons to object to the contents of the Trump-Ukraine call: 1) He solicited cooperation in an inter-governmental criminal investigation. 2) The subject of the criminal investigation in question was a political opponent. 3) There was a quid-pro-quo involved in the solicitation. My question is what happens if you take #2 out of the equation. What happens if the subject of the investigation is not politically involved in any way? I imagine that there are reasons one would want that type of investigation, and there there is some sort of diplomatic protocol set up to make that happen. It's hard to imagine a President being involved in that kind of dealing, unless absolutely necessary. I'd think we'd want his hands clean of that type of direct dealing.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 3, 2019 13:55:55 GMT -5
Let's say for the hypothetical, Christopher Steele? IIRC, Christopher Steele was not an agent of a foreign power (though he once had been), and the entity that hired him was not the office of the President. The whistleblower letter specifies the triggering condition: that "the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals." I don't have time to dig out the underlying statute, but if the whistleblower's account is correct, more than one White House staffer thought that Trump was breaking the law in the course of that call: The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call. They told me that there was already a “discussion ongoing” with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials’ retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain. I suspect that if Trump had asked Zelinskyy to look into some political civilian who had swindled his son-in-law in a business deal, it would amount to the same offense. If, on the other hand, it were to ask for an investigation of a Ukrainian connection in a federal crime or arms dealing or some such, it would be seen as public business.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 3, 2019 13:59:09 GMT -5
I get that's where you're coming from. I'm just looking for clarity. I can see three possible reasons to object to the contents of the Trump-Ukraine call: 1) He solicited cooperation in an inter-governmental criminal investigation. 2) The subject of the criminal investigation in question was a political opponent. 3) There was a quid-pro-quo involved in the solicitation. My question is what happens if you take #2 out of the equation. What happens if the subject of the investigation is not politically involved in any way? I imagine that there are reasons one would want that type of investigation, and there there is some sort of diplomatic protocol set up to make that happen. It's hard to imagine a President being involved in that kind of dealing, unless absolutely necessary. I'd think we'd want his hands clean of that type of direct dealing. There is a diplomatic protocol in the treaty Clinton signed in about 1999. It's for mutual cooperation in legal investigations. Or didn't your "sources" point that out?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 3, 2019 14:14:14 GMT -5
I imagine that there are reasons one would want that type of investigation, and there there is some sort of diplomatic protocol set up to make that happen. It's hard to imagine a President being involved in that kind of dealing, unless absolutely necessary. I'd think we'd want his hands clean of that type of direct dealing. There is a diplomatic protocol in the treaty Clinton signed in about 1999. It's for mutual cooperation in legal investigations. Or didn't your "sources" point that out? Posted earlier but apparently largely ignored: arizonadailyindependent.com/2019/09/29/treaty-with-ukraine-on-mutual-legal-assistance-in-criminal-matters/Here's all you need to know: arizonadailyindependent.com/2019/09/29/treaty-with-ukraine-on-mutual-legal-assistance-in-criminal-matters/
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 3, 2019 14:14:34 GMT -5
Jeff,
I haven't yet announced that I am a candidate for president but I'm thinking I might do it soon. Can you do some opposition research on Todd? I'd ask you to dig up some dirt on him but that would be wrong.
Lar
ps Remember how nice I was to you at the last Ijam you attended?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 3, 2019 14:15:29 GMT -5
Behind a semi-paywall (number of free accesses limited), but it outlines the seriousness of the whistleblower's case: www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-26/whistleblower-memo-shows-impeachable-crimes-in-trump-ukraine-callThe next-to-last paragraph underlines why reasonable people might look askance at Trump's behavior: "the whole undertaking points to the general understanding that Trump had offered a quid pro quo, or at least that he had acted in a way that naturally gave rise to that understanding." You know, wink-and-a-nod, you know what I mean, we don't want "certain people" moving in here, I'm sure you have better things to do with your time than to inspect all that plumbing and electrical stuff, I'm sure it's all up to code, come around later and maybe we can have a beer and a nice chat. Bribe? Did I offer a bribe? Hey, I was just being sociable. Nice car you've got there--be a shame if one of the neighborhood kids messed with it. You know what they're like. Used to be a nice neighborhood. . . .
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 3, 2019 14:17:35 GMT -5
Again, that's someone's opinion of what they wish the transcript said but it didn't.
|
|