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.
The Ukraine Thing: What Am I Missing Here?
I struggle to grasp the logic of the Ukraine impeachment charge being developed by the odious Rep. Schiff. First, we need to look at the established policy precedent. Ukraine has an obligation under the Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters ratified by the Senate in 2000 to cooperate with requests by the US Attorney General in criminal investigation matters and specifies how such requests should be made.
Mr. Biden in 2015 and Mr. Trump (Mr. Giuliani?) do not appear to have touched all those bases. As I read the Treaty, each nation is required to aid the other when an investigation is being conducted by the other one. The Obama and Trump administrations both seem to believe the treaty authorizes one nation (the USA) to tell the other whether and how to conduct its own internal investigations as well. I do not see that provision in the treaty in my quick reading.
Let’s compare aid-withholding actions:
The Obama involvement involved an express, overt withholding regarding an internal Ukranian probe with the additional issue of a financial stake by an administration figure (Joe Biden qua the father of Hunter Biden) and achieved the intended quid pro quo whereas Trump did not. I am struggling to find a distinction that makes Trump culpable but not Obama.
Given what is charted above, we are faced with two choices:
(1) The Obama administration actions were legal/appropriate in which case the Trump actions must also be deemed lawful and appropriate because there is no meaningful distinction that makes Trump culpable.
Or
(2) The Obama administration’s actions were unlawful/ inappropriate in which case Trump’s actions were lawful and appropriate but procedurally defective. In other words, if Trump had reason to believe the Bidens are dirty he has every right under the treaty to request assistance but that request should have been made by the Attorney General pursuant to an active US investigation. Trump could be guilty of jumping the gun, especially given that Durham and Barr are already looking at Ukraine-related matters. Ultimately he would be impeached for not expressly directing Barr to investigate Biden which would be convoluted and stupid even for Adam Schiff.
Published in General
I wonder if the crooks that ran Burisma intentionally grossly overpaid Fredo Biden for a reason. Biden the Younger would likely have accepted a fraction of what they gave him–it’s not like the corporate world was fiercely bidding for his acumen and skill. But because that sum is so absurd, so redolent of corruption and bribery, the Obama administration would have to leave them alone even if there was no crime involving Hunter the Halfwit just because any attention to Burisma would generate a worldwide “WTF?” about the payments to the Blow & Bimbo Czar so loud that even the NYT and WaPo would have to deal with it. And while everybody focused on idiot boy Biden, the rest of the Burisma board could be safely ensconced in some tropical tax haven. Kinda worked out that way.
It is true that no one can know what Trump was thinking when he took these actions. There are problems with the defense that Trump was primarily concerned with corruption.
Why not start a Dept. of Justice investigation? It requires Ukraine to cooperate with the investigation and things are above board. If Ukraine resists the investigation Trump has a politically bullet proof reason for with holding funds.
If Trump’ concerns were primarily corruption there is no need for secrecy or back channels things can be done in public and therefore there would be no reason to release the funds when the whistle blower report was about to come out. In fact Trump allowed the whistle blower report to derail the Ukrainian investigation. Why would he do that if his primary concern was corruption?
Why rise Hunter Biden to such a high and personal level of diplomacy and use back channels to accomplish the task if the effort was just about fighting corruption and catching wrong doers? Doing the investigation they way Trump did would make any future case against Hunter Biden harder to prove in American courts not easier. Why the rush? What was the need for secrecy?
I completely stand by my first comment on the thread, impeachment is unjustified any way you cut it, but Trump’s actions make no sense at all if his primary concern was fighting corruption in the USA and Ukraine.
Also Trump has a long record with corruption but it was not in the “fighting corruption” mode it was using corruption for his own personal advantage. From the point of view alone this strange one off crusade against corruption seems weird and out of character.
It can’t be said enough how corrupt Hunter Biden’s personal dealings were and Joe Biden’s corrupt protection of his son should be a huge scandal.
If this really had been Trump’s motivation then it was laudable but the way Trump chose to pursue this is then mystifying. Why go about in such a way as to completely derail the investigation when it was uncovered what would be the loss of having Barr doing through the DOJ?
Ok. Then how is that you know these things:
If you are going to state those as facts, you must have read them somewhere?
The do-not-prosecute list was revealed by at least one witness at the Schiff Circus and that revelation is why Ambassador Tearful Victim was asked about whether she knew about it. Ambassador Victim also confirmed testimony by others that the Biden-Burisma connection was embarrassing diplomatic staff at the highest levels. There is a picture of Joe in golf attire standing next to his son and a guy from the Burisma board (Devon Archer) yet Joe claims that he was unaware of his son’s involvement with Burisma. Joe’s protestations that he was unaware of the sheer absurdity of the circumstance of his son’s windfall and the shady nature of the guys who provided it at the time of his demand for the prosecutor’s dismissal would require a level of ignorance/amnesia that not even Joe Biden could achieve.
I have little doubt that he saw that corruption was covered-up and that Trump wanted it uncovered-up for advantage.
People do the right thing for the wrong reasons every day – the world would be a much nastier place but for that odd saving grace.
We agree on this point. In Trump’s case, if he wanted the corruption uncovered even for personal advantage why not do it through the DOJ?
Now if Trump’s primary motivation was to do a political hit on Joe Biden that he thought would be better served by making it look as if Ukraine opened up this investigation on their own…well his actions make perfect sense. His actions to back off when his political hit job was going to be revealed also makes sense.
It seems to me that Biden corruption was the opportunity by the motivation for Trump was the hit job and so he tried to prioritize the hit over uncovering the corruption and it blew up in his face.
Of course, the difference between Soviet-era Pravda and current day M$Media is that no one in the USSR believed Pravda.
Unfortunately, almost everyone on the New Left pays attention to the latest spin that the ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN people have to say.
I give you a rating of 10+
Your thinking is brilliantly and concisely stated.
The DOJ is corruption central, isn’t it?
I am not sure in what sense that you mean this….
All I mean is that it seems that Trump has a good relationship with Barr and it would be extremely easy for Barr to open a case and have the Ukrainians participate in the investigation. If Trumps main motivation was fighting corruption. The political hit that Joe Biden would take would be less because Trump opened the investigation.
It seems however that Trump wanted it to appear that Ukraine opened the investigation so the political hit on Biden would be greater and so he went about in a way he thought would cover his tracks. That blew up in his face.
So it seems to me the political hit was the motivation for Trump, Hunter’s corruption was merely the opportunity.
With the American public the base goals of the a political hit gone wrong doesn’t get you much sympathy. Similarly if the Democrats has been forced to say that investigating Biden’s corruption was off limits because he is a Biden well that doesn’t play well in America either.
I think Trump’s actions speak to his motivations but change nothing on impeachment, which remains ridiculous. Though his actions might have something to say about whether he is worthy to be re-elected.
There are multiple ‘facts’ that are asserted that seem questionable to me:
*Anytime these days that someone quotes the ‘fact’ that 17 intelligence agencies were in agreement that Russia did the hacking means that the speaker is the hack. Even DNI chief Clapper said it was three.
I wonder if it would really be that easy. There is a lot of opposition to Barr in the DOJ, isn’t there?
As I understand Barr could just say it is open draw up the proper papers and assign it. At that point Trump could run with it. He would legally be right but he would violate norms but that is pretty standard these days. His case would have a lot stronger but every one would know Ukraine did not open the investigations. Other downsides I cant imagine….perhaps my ignorance?
I can’t believe that some judge wouldn’t issue an injunction against it. Isn’t that the proper procedure for everything Trump does? It sounds ridiculous, but so does everything else.
‘Violate norms’ is another way of saying, ‘don’t try to move, your muscles have probably atrophied anyway’.
This is interesting to me. I often come up with ways that Trump could do things that would make his actions more politically viable and therefore more painful for the Democrats. I get a response back similar to this one like “Well the Democrats would just do something crazy and illegal in response or a Dem. Judge will violate the rule of law to stop him so what does it matter.”
This is interesting to me. Why don’t Dem. Judges just rule Trump’s re-election campaign unconstitutional? Why not ban all Trump advertising as hate speech? Why not declare Trump’s term to be only three years long and that he already isn’t President anymore and call a snap eleciton?
All of these things are as crazy as a judge issuing an injunctions against an investigation. If a Democrat judge were to do something so crazy that would be great for Trump and Republicans in general. Democrat politicians would be twisting in the wind hurt if they supported the crazy judge and hurt if they didn’t support him. Trump would generate sympathy, Democrats would lose credibility. Such an action would be like a massive campaign donation to Trump. Another reason to have done it the proper way.
One the hardest thing I have in trying to understand Trump is why he makes it so easy for the Democrats to oppose him. The Democrats are really bad at politics right now, they are vulnerable to being crushed by Trump throws them life lines all the time. I don’t quite understand it.
Grasshopper:
The Tao of Trump is indeed hard to grasp.
Recall the Lord’s instructions to Gideon to select only the guys who lapped like dogs (or was it the guys who did not lap like dogs?) when common sense would dictate that you bring as many guys as you can muster to a battle. Similarly, Trump annoys and divides but that which annoys and divides also mobilizes and clarifies and thus creates a path to victory that would not exist if sought with a mushy, polite, presumably more universal approach. That is why Gideon and Trump were victorious and Romney and McCain were not. Thus endeth the lesson. And I admit I still find it ineffable and mysterious but I want to believe…
Whether it’s easy or hard, the Democrats are going to hate on him. So I’m not sure it matters very much whether Trump makes it easy or not.
I confess I ignored the 2016 election. Hillary, everyone said, was a shoe in. The Dems, both then & now, control the voting machinery in California.
When my spouse woke me from a nap to tell me Hillary would not win, & that Trump would, I turned the TV on. I watched Trump’s acceptance speech.
I literally got goosebumps. I felt in my gut that this nation had been saved by some Divinity who wanted for things to be straightened out. After the election, I discovered that Trump liked Mike Flynn. And I knew that we had been saved.
What Trump has not accomplished and has also been diverted away from is largely due to the Dem’s damned interference.
Neither Romney nor McCain made a universal approach. McCain was a terrible politician and Romney chose the wrong strategy and believed a bad theory of the race. They lost because Obama was a better politician then them and to be honest Obama was lucky.
Clinton had all she needed to beat Trump but she played a strong hand terribly. Trump has been very lucky in his opponents and he was a very canny marketer in the mid-west, that made his unlikely election possible. That should not be undersold.
There are no useful link or analogy between Gideon and Trump either on the positive side nor on the bad way that Gideon finished.
I have not seen a compelling case yet that Trump’s talent, and he has talent, has been more important than being lucky in his opponents.
Sure but why not it painful for them and make them pay for the hate? Why not crush them for it? That is what I don’t get. I don’t care if the Democrats love or hate Trump I would rather they not be power, I don’t like that Trump’s actions rescue them from their own idiot behavior. Crush them don’t coddle them.
Clinton’s loss was a pleasant surprise and reveling in her loss was a beautifully sweet time. There is no lady that more deserved a humiliating loss more than Hillary Clinton. I am glad she is gone.
Trump is doing everything wrong and it’s working so right!
The horror movie ain’t over until the credits roll.