Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Presidential Ukraine Phone Transcript: Nothingburger? Not Exactly.
President Trump has declassified and released the transcript of his phone conversation in July with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy (See our post here.) The transcript is a complete nothingburger when it comes to the loony Left’s (and NeverTrumper’s) insane desire to remove President Trump from office. Trump did not, as had been alleged by partisan hacks in the Fake News, threaten to withhold military aid from Ukraine unless they gave him dirt on Biden. (Why this would have been an impeachable offense is not clear to me, in any case.)
Some people are suggesting that, like a Rorschach test, the transcript reveals different things to different people. Those who hate Trump will use it against him, those who love him will use it to defend him. Sure. Absolutely. This has been the case with many things over the past three years. But here’s the thing: Some people have a track record of being wrong, and other people have a track record of being proven right by the facts. The people who told you yesterday the transcript would show Trump had corruptly threatened Ukraine with withholding military aid in exchange for opposition research on a potential rival were wrong.
On the face of it, one would assume that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement last night that she had authorized “formal impeachment inquiries” was foolish and premature. But that’s only if one assumes her intent was to actually impeach Trump. It’s not. Despite her pronouncement, the Speaker has not so far scheduled any floor vote on the matter. Without a vote, there is no “formal” House investigation, no matter what she calls it. So what’s going on?
What did the transcript actually reveal? Trump has reason to believe Ukraine has Hillary Clinton’s email server with the 30,000+ deleted emails on it. Zelensky is appointing a new national prosecutor, this month, who is going to reopen the corruption probe into the company that was paying Hunter Biden $50,000 a month, presumably in exchange for favorable treatment by the Obama Administration.
And don’t forget: The Justice Department Inspector General report on FISA abuse is expected to be released to the public in the near future.
Another thought: Sadly, Ruth Ginsburg has had two bouts with cancer just since last November. It is quite possible that she may pass away before the 2020 election. While none of us wish her death, you can be sure the rabid pro-abortionists on the Left are already concocting whatever false accusations they will lob against any nominee of Trump’s.
The Democrat leadership does not actually want to impeach Trump in the House. First of all, they simply don’t have the votes, not even in their own majority caucus. Even if they could pass articles of impeachment, they know that the Senate would not convict. Even if the Senate did convict, what then? President Mike Pence? No, the Democrat leadership doesn’t want to impeach. They want to create a cloud of illegitimacy around Trump. That has been their strategy all along. The risk of impeachment is so high that they may be sabotaging their own chances of winning the election, which means they don’t believe any of the Democrats running can win anyway. (Also why they’re willing to stick a knife in the back of Joe Biden, supposedly the front-runner.)
The “whistleblower” frenzy of the past week has been about distracting from the actual crimes committed in 2016 by Hillary Clinton, her presidential campaign, and the Obama Administration (soon to be revealed in the IG report, presumably) and from the actual corruption of the Bidens. And the not-formal “formal” impeachment inquiries are to cast a pall on any potential Trump Supreme Court nomination. (“The Senate must not vote on a nomination made by a president under formal impeachment inquiry!”)
TL;DR Democrats, Media, NeverTrumpers think you’re stupid.
I’ll add that the reason the Dems have been so eager to get DJT’s tax filings is so they can comb through them looking for ties to foreign countries/governments. They explicitly said that when the McGuffin was Russian collusion. They’ve been trying for years.
Apparently there is now.
“The Trump–Ukraine Transcript Contains Evidence of a Quid Pro Quo” — David French
It’s at crucial times like these when we must all search our hearts and ask, “Hmm, I wonder where Sohrab Ahmari is right now?”
My first thought when I heard about the impeachment was “oh my God the IG report must be a nuclear bomb, because they’re already trying to own the new cycle.”
“The facts are known.”
Biden brags about his corruption:
Andy McCarthy, who I think has covered the Trump / Russia collusion claims fairly, has a different take on the transcript. In his reading, it might be benign:
https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/the-mccarthy-report/episode-59-a-troubling-transcript/
Whenever the name Sohrab Ahmari is mentioned, it is a good rule to post this …
Against David French-ism
Never gets old. And the flak is always the heaviest when you are over the target.
Have you not seen the video of Mr Biden boasting to a room full how he threatened to cut off Ukraine’s loans if the DA investigating Hunter was not fired promptly? Please tell me you have not.
Doesn’t that depend on the reason for asking? Don’t you want to find out if Vice President Joe Biden abused his power with the appearance of influence peddling at the least?
Investigating Russia Colluuuuusion would have been justified too if there weren’t so much about it that was obviously manufactured and of dubious. I would have been mollified if there were serious inquiries into the Steele dossier (was that itself collusion to influence the election?) or the provenance of the investigation into the Trump campaign, but no one seemed interested even though the only actual evidence we had pointed strongly in those directions.
No, you inferred that, you have no idea if President Trump implied it. Ukrainian president apparently doesn’t share your inference.
Your interpretation isn’t entirely unreasonable, but it remains speculation and interpretation especially since there are other reasonable interpretations.
Optics. Back when the Russia Hoax was still inflated and rolling along and more people believed in it, this would have looked like more fuel for the investigation fire. Now there’s room for it to be the reasonable request that it obviously is.
Because there’s precious few he can trust. Perhaps more importantly: why wouldn’t he discuss this personally when he has the chance and when he can trust Ukrainian underlings probably even less than he can trust his own?
Except that literally everyone else is getting a pass. And has gotten a pass (do you think this is new?) for more obvious infractions.
So Biden is point man for the Obama admin for Ukraine energy and corruption. And magically Hunter with no experience gets appointed to the board Burisma largest Ukrainian natural gas company , that is an energy company and under investigation for corruption. Gets 50k a month, and 3.1 million is transferred to bank accounts for his company. Daddy Biden helped shape Ukraine’s energy and anti-corruption policies, issues that directly impact Burisma.
But no US laws broken, no problem .
Why go through channels when you are the number one channel on the dial and you have the precise person on the other end of the conversation to get the job done?
As one of our more active Never Trumpers has pointed out the Pravda at the Bulsh#t is Biden was trying to get the Ukrainians to investigate his son harder, hence a good thing. Not like Orange Man Bad.
Did you just sleep through the last 3 years where the Obama DOJ (I’m sure completely unknown to Obama, Biden and Clinton) set up an attempt to destroy Trumps candidacy using foreign assets ? Were you in a coma?
“You need both a public and a private position”- Hillary Clinton
tongue firmly in cheek
Is it true? Oh geez, how can we tell if anything is true? I mean, I certainly don’t believe the intelligence assessment which stated that Russia interfered with the intent to help Trump.
If Hunter Biden is investigated by Ukraine and prosecuted by Ukraine, then he has whatever recourse allowed by Ukraine law. A relatively free nation conducting investigation and trial according to its laws isn’t the same as having no recourse or as being screwed.
If, on the other hand, Ukraine is so corrupt that we can’t trust anything coming from there then all of your arguments about who was fired or more corrupt or who stopped which investigations for which reason or which investigations found nothing – that’s all irrelevant because you think it’s all inherently untrustworthy anyway.
I’m still waiting to hear how tax returns would show this – if you own 2% in some foreign company which is owned five levels removed by some nefarious source then is that evidence of something? Hell, if we’re all six degrees from Kevin Bacon then we’re certainly far closer to somebody nefarious. Or do people expect something more direct like: Bribe income from Vladimir?
Line item #24 on IRS Form 1040: List all bribes received from Vladimir Putin.
Haven’t you often wondered why that question is on your tax return? Because Trump.
Hunter, I mean David, I mean Bill, are you new around here?
According to Tim Pool, this has been disproven.
I did not conclude that Trump was asking Ukraine to prosecute Hunter. I assume any possible trial would happen in the US. I would vociferously oppose handing any American over to a foreign power. (Unlike some Leftists who hoped George W. Bush would be prosecuted at the Hague.)
The precedent was set when the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaign conspired with Ukraine and Russia (and Australia and the UK) to prevent Trump from getting elected.
Biden’s on video bragging about getting the prosecutor fired. That’s evidence. If you think it doesn’t mean he did anything wrong, fine. But please don’t call me a liar for coming to a different conclusion than you.
The president can, in fact, start an investigation into anything he wants. He is the executive. The “strict processes” do not apply to him.
Bill, you can believe whatever you want but I would appreciate your not distorting what I write. According to my understanding, Biden has been bragging that he got a prosecutor fired who was investigating Biden and his son’s business activities. The facts are not known because Biden took steps to prevent the facts from coming to light. The business dealings occurred in the Ukraine. And the president conducts foreign policy. He is also our country’s chief law enforcement officer. There is a connection between Ukraine and the fact that there was foreign interference in our 2016 election. He is obligated to find the facts here. What was Biden up to? As far as I know Trump did not “order” anyone to do anything. Why does an investigation make you so upset? What do Democrats have to hide?
Sorry, but you’re in fact wrong:
And here you’re doing what’s called “begging the question.”
I’m always amazed by people like Bill who write as if the office of president of the United States is some kind of weak figurehead who merely sits atop a vast bureaucracy of experts who actually set policy and govern. Others expand and contract the powers of the president according to their views of the officeholder. But it doesn’t work that way. It turns out that’s not what the founders wanted. In fact, they wanted the opposite: an energetic, decisive, accountable, and powerful executive to advocate for the public, to check and balance the legislative and judicial branches, to conduct foreign policy, to wage war and protect the country, to propose legislation, to nominate judges and ambassadors, to appoint officers of the various departments, and to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
If you want to get concerned about the abuse of executive power, take a look back at the Obama administration and how it used its powers to intimidate journalists and how it unmasked the names of American citizens to the federal bureaucracy in its closing days. Take a look at Lois Lerner, a high official in the IRS, who took the fifth when questioned about her role in denying tax exempt status to conservative organizations.
You’d think the first sentence of Article II, Section 1 would clue them in:
Sadly, it’s hard to take any actions by the Dems seriously as they’ve been trying to impeach him since he took the oath of office. They’ve simply cried wolf too many times.