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.
Bombshells are Repeatedly Busts: Republicans Need to Take Charge of the Narrative
The unfolding of the impeachment saga sounds like a very poorly written detective story, where the Left already knows who committed the crime. But the Democrats are still trying to re-write a story that the public will swallow. It’s not going well.
This story required dozens, maybe hundreds, of bureaucrats, who were delighted to be led along in the Trump impeachment story. It’s not difficult to understand why those who have been interviewed are so angry (since Trump violates everything about their Leftist agenda), but their determination to indulge in lies and distortions is revolting and even bewildering. They have decided to be “strung along” and assist in the writing of the detective story because they hate the supposed perpetrator.
They may be successful in impeaching Trump, and they will also be successful in destroying any respect that citizens may have held for the Democrat party.
The reasons for the destruction of the Democrats is that they once again assume that the general public is naïve, stupid and gullible. The flood of negativity is probably turning off many people on both sides of the aisle. But if the Republicans use a laser-focus on the huge flaws of the Democrats’ arguments, they have a chance of winning the minds of the people. The Republicans’ job is to create a clear narrative of why and how this story is being played out.
I’d like to focus on the biggest flaw of the Democrats: they decided that their key argument would be on the President’s applying the pressure of a quid pro quo. This kind of bartering (not bribery) occurs frequently between countries. Even the biased CBS News acknowledged this charge to be a fallacy:
All of this presumes there is something wrong with a ‘quid pro quo.’ But even that seems untrue. In fact, ‘quid pro quo’ arrangements are normal in diplomacy. A House bill passed recently by Democrats would establish a ‘quid pro quo’ that bars Russia from access even to private U.S. funds until it can be shown not to have interfered in U.S. elections. Trump, Democrats say, sought his personal or political interest; it also happened to be a national interest.
Okay. So let’s not call it quid pro quo; let’s called it bribery instead. Or extortion. Part of the problem is that if the party that is supposedly being bribed is not aware of being bribed, it’s not a bribe—is it?
Here’s what Kurt Volcker, the U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine until recently, said:
Volker said that the suspension of military aid came to his attention on July 18, a week before the president’s call with Zelensky. He told the committees that he had tried to find out the reason for the suspension, but ‘nobody ever gave a reason why.’
He said withholding the aid struck him as ‘problematic,’ and he ‘acted immediately to argue this has to be reversed.’
However, Volker also refuted the idea that military aid was used as a bargaining chip for a White House meeting. He told the committee that he didn’t believe the Ukrainians were even immediately aware that the assistance had been suspended. ‘I don’t believe — they were aware at the time, so there was no leverage implied.’
One important point to stress is that Mr. Volcker’s statement was an assumption, based on a lack of evidence to the contrary. When I review the other statements made by several others, they will be stating their assumptions as fact. The lack of evidence dominates their testimonies.
It’s helpful to examine statements regarding quid pro quo of five other parties: Fiona Hill, Gordon Sondland, Marie Yovanovitch, Colonel Alexander Vindmann, and Bill Taylor.
First, let’s look at the comments of Fiona Hill:
At Bolton’s request, Hill told NSC White House lawyer John Eisenberg that Mulvaney knew about a quid pro quo: ‘Ambassador Sondland had basically indicated that there was an agreement with the Chief of Staff that they would have a White House meeting or, you know, a Presidential meeting if the Ukrainians started up these investigations again,’ she told the committees.
Now, an observation about Gordon Sondland’s statement, the United States Ambassador to the European Union:
But there are two big logical leaps in Sondland’s statement.
The first is that he only ‘presumed’ there was a “quid pro quo’ — that is, he did not have direct knowledge of one.
The second is that he told the Ukrainians that a ‘quid pro quo’ was ‘likely’ — that is, he did not know with certainty.
Sondland amended his statement but I assume he did so under pressure. (Forgive my own assumption.)
Next, a portion of the interview of Marie Yovanovitch:
According to a transcript of her testimony October 11 released Monday, Yovanovitch testified she learned in late 2018 that Giuliani and former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko had plans to “do things, including to me.” She said Lutsenko and Giuliani had several meetings, and Lutsenko sought to remove her in retribution for the embassy’s efforts to rid the prosecutor general’s office of corruption.
Let’s look at a comment by Colonel Alexander Vindmann, a White House official:
In hours of questioning on Tuesday by Democrats and Republicans, Colonel Vindman recounted his alarm at the July 25 call, saying he ‘did not think it was proper’ for Mr. Trump to have asked Mr. Zelensky to investigate a political rival, and how White House officials struggled to deal with the fallout from a conversation he and others considered problematic.
And finally, a portion of the interview of Bill Taylor, former ambassador to Ukraine:
Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge.
‘And this isn’t firsthand. It’s not secondhand. It’s not thirdhand,’ Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., said to Taylor. ‘But if I understand this correctly, you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden?’
‘That’s correct,’ Taylor admitted.
Have you noticed a pattern?
- Several people had only second, third or fourth-hand information and considered those to be facts.
- A number of them made unsubstantiated assumptions from rumors.
- A few assumed they were more qualified than the President to make foreign policy.
- All of them decided that a quid pro quo had occurred and was unacceptable.
Additional analysis would probably yield more absurdities and distortions.
* * * * * *
Republicans are allowing themselves to be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of outrageous procedures, assumptions and lies. They have to get their act together and take control of this impeachment story and reveal how misguided and despicable the actions of the Democrats have been. They need to limit the amount of information they include and choose the most egregious issues to make their points. The House will still probably vote for impeachment, but they will be damaged in the process.
Republicans need to act now.
Published in Politics
One way to bring home the absurdity of assumptions is to give examples of when people make wrong assumptions in their own lives. A kid comes home late from a date . . . parent assumes the kid’s violating curfew . . . instead, he’s in a car accident. Or a person is invited to a dinner and hardly eats anything . . . the host assumes she hates the food . . . turns out she has an upset stomach. These aren’t the best examples, but I’m trying to point out that if the public can relate to absur assumptions they’ve made in their own lives, they’ll see the absurdity of what the Democrats are doing.
The Democrats face certain defeat at the ballot box based on the normal factors at play in elections. So they are taking a flyer. Their bet is that their allies in the media will sell a narrative of their choosing and stampede the pusillanimous pachyderms in the Senate. And they are not wrong in their judgment. Letting “normal” rule is certain defeat; setting the prairie on fire and seeing if it will burn down your enemy’s house and crops is a strategy. We are hoping that the wind will change and devastate them instead. Truth be told they are not risking much, and we are risking all.
That’s why we have to be more strategic. I know it will be an uphill battle, but we have to take it on!
pusillanimous pachyderms–excellent!
This may be one reason why Democrats seem more eager to appeal to non-citizens than citizens.
As this it the actual focus of all of their efforts, it is frightening how close this whole thing is to dropping over the cliff. There are a few notable individuals who are always itching to stampede to the left on cue (its almost as if they were placed there to do just that)…and it is not really their lack of courage that I fear so much as their lack of intelligence (and/or of those who really have their ear***).
***Note: Its not any of us.
We simply need to keep our focus on the narrative and let them speak in their own echo chamber. Whether it’s lack or intelligence or lack of courage, we need to try to ignore them. And that’s really hard. Thanks, @philo.
BINGO! The story should be: US taxpayers deserve a proper accounting of aid money and weapons that have gone missing in Ukraine.
Just say that over and over and over. Every Republican in the country should repeat it like a meme. “Investigate corruption in Ukraine” should be as viral as “Jeffery Epstein didn’t kill himself”.
Still no mention of the Clinton negotiated treaty with Ukraine that requires them to investigate corruption.
https://www.gardenweb.com/discussions/5794472/1998-treaty-w-ukraine-on-mutual-legal-assistance-in-criminal-matters
The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal
assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in
order to counter criminal activities more effectively. The
Treaty should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution
of a wide variety of crimes, including drug trafficking
offenses. The Treaty is self-executing. It provides for a broad
range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance
available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or
statements of persons; providing documents, records, and
articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or
identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for
testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches
and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint,
confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection
of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by
the laws of the requested state.
William J Clinton.
The problem is that they have a sure bet. I have come to the conclusion that the media is the biggest problem we have.
Well, as I have said before, that is because they are looking at a mirror and believe they are looking through a window marked “general public.”
None of that matters to the Dems. All that matters is that Trump is removed from office. Be that via impeachment, election, resignation or his death is all good by them.
Yes. That. Either you are promising something good, or threatening something bad. What else could you do that would even resemble “negotiations?”
The bug is a feature. The House and Senate Republicans are not incompetent, they are fearful of being forced to actually own the full set of campaign promises in the 2016 party platform. They want President Trump on the ropes, not knocked out (unless they get/ keep majorities in the process.
Life is easier in the minority. You have issues to fund-raise off of and you are never responsible for anything.
I guess the Dems use this Latin phrase, because it sounds legalistic. But it is poorly defined. It could mean diplomacy or it could mean some type of personal enrichment. The Dems mean the former, but imply the latter. The GOP is just confused.
This is the kind of focus I’m talking about @dong! And they have to be loud enough that the MSM won’t be able to ignore them.
Seriously?? Why aren’t the Republicans jumping on this fact? I wasn’t aware of it. Thanks, @michaelkennedy!
With all the social media options available, there must be a way to create a new and extraordinary manner in which to reach the public! Don’t the Republicans have IT people?
Republicans needed to act a few decades ago.
Today we have President Donald Trump as a result of their inaction.
Of course, it goes without saying that they also need control of the media in order to get their message out. And they don’t have that. It’s only been since the rise of independent journalism via the internet that there’s finally been a counter to the mainstream press.
No question about it. But . . . what can be done?
He has already been created and he is wreaking havoc like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Hey, they chose the form, not us.
Yeah, but if he we have to rely on him to put out every important message, we are doomed! C’mon, independent media, do something that rocks some boats!
I’m certain they should tell the story of the “assumed quid pro quo” and that there was no investigation and there was no money withheld.
The Rs should also tell the story of the whistle blower while they control the time. I don’t care who’s in the witness seat. Tell us about him being a Brennan/Rice acolyte. Tell us how he is a registered D. Bring up the conspiracy between Schiff and the whistleblower. Tell us all how the whistleblower was fired for leaking. Tell us all how the whisleblower was pushing Trump/Russia collusion. Maybe even write a Schiff like fake dialog for him. Find out from Vindman if Vindman told the whistleblower about the phone call. I wonder if there were violations of law with Mr. Vindman sharing the call the ciaramella. And, maybe tell us about “Charlie” from the Strzok Page texts.
Also, when the Rs control the time tell us stories about Hunter Biden, the State Department, Joe Biden and a million dollars a year from Burisma was buying.
Nellie Ohr on the witness list? I wonder what stories they are going to tell us that she could have told us if she was allowed.
You’ve laid this out nicely Susan. It’s all fake. The Dems are going to run an impeachment for purely political reasons. There is nothing there.
Why are they doing it? Besides their hatred of Trump? Here’s what I think. They have no agenda. Can anyone name a single thing the House is attempting to pass? There isn’t anything. What they stand for is socialism and they know that passing a socialistic agenda will be the ruin of their election. So they have to wave their hands and provide a soft shoe dance to at least keep their base happy. This impeachment hides the fact that the core of the Dem Party is socialist.
The impeachment will be a stain on all their reputations. Meanwhile the country is left hanging with the bill.
The sad thing is that I believe we would be going through this no matter which GOP got elected. When the Dems rigged election failed and HRC failed, impeachment was the only answer for that crime.
I have a quid pro quo relationship with Kroger. I’ll have to rethink that.
Oh, say can you see, by the dawn’s early light…the bombshells bursting in air…
It’s in our national anthem!
In truth, the collective (probably not the best word choice there) of Ricochet has enough expertise to write, shoot, and effectively distribute the kind of video shorts/commercials that would convey these ideas – though I personally don’t even know how to start.
I am sure there are a lot of millionaires and billionaires paying good money to take out Trump. We haven’t seen anything, yet. They will flood the airways with ads trashing Trump over all this and the weak minded middle will go where the wind blows. If the Dems win the next election, I will confidently believe the country is lost, corruption of the elite never ends well for them or the people, though. Like someone said above, once they weaponized government to spy on their opponents, they had to destroy whomever beat them. If they get away with it, we will never be able to fix it.
Well said, @manny. Thank you.