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
@eherring, and where are our millionaires and billionaires??
The eight years with Bush 43 in office, and the eight years when Reagan was in the White House, pretty much confirm that. You had lower levels of social media activity under Bush, and we were still under the old media rules in the Reagan era, but in both cases, as with Trump, the media and the Democrats were outraged that the GOP candidate had won the election.
A President Cruz would likely have provoked the same level of insanity as Trump has, because like Trump he pushes back. But even Bush 43 was the subject of assassination pr0n books and movies on the left by his second term — no reason not to believe a President Jeb! or even a President Rubio (or in 2013 a President Mitt) wouldn’t have provoked the same type of psychotically hostile reactions.
I’m fascinated by your observation confirming @fakejohnjanegalt‘s comment. I think a lot of us assumed that this was all about Trump’s winning, but I think you’re both correct: this was about Hillary losing, and any GOP president would have been attacked. Someone should write a post on this idea!
We are dealing with a generation who were raised on Barney and participation trophies – a generation that requires safe spaces or they can’t even. They didn’t get their woobie, and now there will be hell to pay.
Is there an estimate for the price of an impeachment process?
I actually am asking for a friend for once.
Priceless, in a negative way.
A lot of people don’t realize how much money the “Climate Change” thing involves. It is billions and maybe trillions. It’s not just the crazies but big corporations have bought in to get the subsidies.
The house will vote to impeach, that is already baked in. What the impact is on the country at large may not be very significant. There is a very high % of democratic voters who strongly believe that removal is necessary, and necessary because they hate Trump, charges will not matter. There will also be a majority of republican voters who strongly believe that this is simply a political act without real cause.
That leaves a lot in the middle. And that middle may be swayed by two arguments: the total number of charges sent to the senate may be so large it is hard to not conclude that the President does indeed need to be removed, or that the act of removal is a political attack by a body that few people actually trust.
Democrats in congress have longed for impeachment, contrary to what Speaker Pelosi has said. Their strategy has been to wait long enough for the President to give them ammunition they needed. And on this, Trump has delivered, in spades.
And in the end, we all have to decide if Trump is doing the job of President. One day this past weekend we issued 82 tweets. A rather stunning number by any standard and something that takes an extraordinary amount of time.
The media coverage of the House vs. the Senate sides here is going to be interesting. Most of the media is fine with just taking whatever Schiff’s putting out unquestioningly — it’s why Donald Jr.’s comment on The View hit home that ABC didn’t want to out his dad’s whistleblower, but worked not just to find out but get CBS to fire the person they thought leaked the video on their Epstein cover-up.
How do they handle the Senate trial, when their heroes get cross-examined? My guess is either as defense attorneys, or they sidestep it completely.
Yes. Trump:
Oh, that was Obama. That’s OK, but Trump “tweeted”. Hang him high.
Who is “we”?
I don’t know who said what to whom but what little we’ve all heard, the worst of it, what Democrats are calling bribery, is more like a normal exchange between countries that have to exchange interests all the time. It’s what they do, always everywhere with leaders from both sides making deals that serve their personal political interests. Biden in contrast, got his kid out of serious trouble by threatening an approved and very large exchange.
And one wonders what sort of influence that 80,000/month bought.
Again, people do not seem to recognize there is a 1998 treaty, negotiated by Bill Clinton , that REQUIRES Ukraine to investigate criminal activity by citizens of either country.