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.
Serial Seppuku in the Capital
In all my many years of watching politics, I have never seen so many people so absolutely convinced of something where the facts support the exact opposite conclusion. The Democrats are literally screaming for Trump’s removal for a myriad of so-called high crimes and misdemeanors while the facts show none of their accusations are valid. The Ukraine aid was released, meetings were not denied and Zelinskyy never initiated any investigation nor promised to do so.
The actual transcript of the so-called incriminating conversation mentions no conditions on aid or assistance; in fact, it does not mention any assistance or aid at all. Zelisnkyy said he never felt pressured by Trump and did not know that the aid had been even delayed at the time of the call. There were five high-level meetings between US and Ukraine officials subsequent to the initial call and not once was any condition mentioned regarding the forthcoming aid.
The only “fact” witness who had any direct dealing with President Trump was Ambassador Sondland, and he made it clear that he just assumed there were conditions. Trump never once told him, in fact no one ever told him, that the aid was conditioned on an investigation of the Bidens. Sondland just assumed. And when he asked President Trump about this directly; that is “what did he [President Trump] want from Ukraine?” Trump said, “I want nothing. I want nothing. There is no quid pro quo.”
And yet the Democrats maintain their death-hold on the allegation that Trump demanded dirt on the Bidens in exchange for aid. Quite frankly, this entire ordeal likely bodes the end of the Biden candidacy (RIP) as it casts sunshine on Hunter Biden’s sweet dealings in Ukraine, Romania, and China. The more daylight Hunter receives, the more he looks like a corrupt rent seeker, a fraud, eager to sell out America for his fortune. And that does not reflect well on dad, the well-honed persona of everyman, blue-collar Joe.
Have they forgotten that the US Senate is controlled by the opposition? A Senate trial could prove very damaging to those who engineered the Russia hoax, the Hillary dismissal, the surveillance of the Trump campaign, and the so-called House Intelligence investigation. Imagine a damaging inspector general report, a thorough Senate trial and acquittal, and a devastating Durham investigation.
This will not be a good election year for Democrats; worse yet for their deep state allies and their cronies in the press.
Published in Politics
You may be right. I am guessing that if the Senate issues a subpoena for Pompeo, Perry and Bolton to testify, they will testify, and we would get to the bottom of all of this. It is within the realm of possibility that they will contradict the first 12 witnesses, but I think it far more likely that they will confirm those witnesses.
Colin Powell has said that command decisions should be made when a decision maker has 40-70% of information needed. Below 40%, the decision-maker is shooting from the hip. But over 70%, the decision maker is being paralyzed by inaction, looking for more and more evidence.
I think that the same analogy applies here, albeit by different percentages. I think that the House should impeach when it has 70-90% of the information. This is why Pelosi kept hanging back, and hanging back. But after Trump released the non-transcript of his July 25, 2019 call, the percentage grew quickly, and after the 12 witnesses is clearly in the 70-90% range.
Now, it is time to hear from Perry, Pompeo and Bolton. If Trump prevents their testimony, we can and should reach the inference that they would substantiate the 12 witnesses. In civil trials, a witness has a Fifth Amendment right to not not testify. But the Court can come to a conclusion in a civil trial if a witness doesn’t testify.
You might be right.
I note for the record, as to the 1880’s, that Prohibition was ineffective, that a high percentage of Reagan Democrats were ethnic Roman Catholics, and the South is a stronghold of today’s Republican Party.
As to the 1970’s, Marijuana is legal or quasi-legal, that Jimmy Carter’s amnesty was well received, and that abortion in the first trimester is generally agreed upon by the squishy middle.
We shall see what the 2020 election holds.
Gary, you are allowing wishful thinking to get the better of you. Not a single one of those witnesses actually said that Trump did use taxpayer funds to entice/bribe etc. etc. etc. In fact, when asked, they specifically said that they had no evidence that he had done any such things. They had “feelings,” “thoughts,” and “presumptions.” You can call a tail a leg all you want, but that doesn’t make it one. If you think Trump’s behavior was hinky, that’s fine. But it is false to state that twelve witnesses provided conclusive testimony of anything other than what they “thought.” (If I missed the part where those twelve witnesses, under questioning by the Congresscritters, responded “yes,” when asked directly and specifically if they had such conclusive evidence, please point it out.)
Of course Trump can object and claim privilege. And the matter can go to court, and get sorted out, as it has before in impeachment situations. Objecting to what may be an improper request isn’t obstruction. Let the courts sort it out.
Wishes aren’t horses, Gary. Fact of the matter is that Mueller did not come to a conclusion either way on obstruction (some, like me, may think he was derelict in his duty by not doing so), and Barr and the DOJ did what they were legally required to do, and Trump wasn’t charged with anything. Either Mueller really believed that he didn’t have enough evidence, or he was simply gutless. (And please don’t give me that “sitting President/indictment” dodge. He could have come to a conclusion without indicting. But he chose not t0.) Whatevs, as the children say, fuming over what didn’t happen, and dreaming that the Democrat scheme to impeach Trump (which has been in play since November 2016) is somehow going to grandfather in the Mueller report and make things “right” in your eyes, is a recipe for frustration. It’s probably best to move on. If it’s a chilly evening, I suggest you put that printed copy of the Mueller Report on the fire, along with another log, toast some marshmallows, and enjoy a mug of hot chocolate.
The rest of your comment is wishful prognostication. I don’t know what’s going to happen, but we’ll regroup in a year or so and see what actually did, shall we?
You and @garyrobbins both assume that the Senate will allow hearsay evidence and assumptions (which covers most of the testiomony from the House). If the current rules of the Senate for Impeachment Trials are followed, the Chief Justice of the United States makes an initial ruling on whether the evidence is admissible. If a member of the Senate objects to the ruling, the question is put to the full Senate and decided on a majority vote.
Since the Senate is 53-47 GOP, Cocaine Mitch can afford to lose the two squishes Romney and Murkowski (Collins is a more difficult read on this) and poof, that testimony is inadmissible. Heck, he may pick up Jones and Manchin.
He’s not even the second worst president of the 21st century.
Interesting.
But perhaps we could continue to “preview” some of the evidentiary issues here. For starters (see #21 above) I’m interested in the foundation for your comment that Trump “demanded that Zelinskyy publicly institute an investigation before Trump would release the aid . . . ” To narrow the issue, let’s stick with Trump’s actual words and not be diverted by second hand accounts of “interpretations.”
Honest, I didn’t know this article by Julie Kelly was going to post this morning. She nails the real reason so many in the government-academia axis are deranged by PDT.
I’ve been saying this forever: The progressive project is and has always been to transfer wealth, status, and power from those who produce to those who persuade. Think that’s twaddle? Then tell me one progressive act, either already accomplished or in the works, that doesn’t do that.
The greatest single thing about PDT is that he’s made it obvious enough for people to start getting wise to the con. Maybe if Rome had a few DJT’s among its late-stage emperors the West would have turned out differently.
There are a half dozen GOP Senators who have severe concerns about Trump’s fitness for office. While they might not vote for impeachment, they may vote for a more expansive senate trial, sabotaging Trump without overtly opposing him.
Great! Let’s hear from Pompeo, Perry and Bolton!
However, Trump cannot deny the evidence to Congress, and then complain that Congress does not have the evidence.
Wow. It has come to this. Gary on one side, and every single other person on the other.
Gary, She is not know for being a rapid Trump supporter. She is not a member of Happy Warriors. Everything She has said has been levelheaded.
It is time for you to take a deep breath and face reality.
I think the two-pronged purpose of the Democrats in pursuing this seemingly hopeless strategy right now is to capture the Senate in 2020 and get rid of Donald Trump in 2021.
They want to use their defeated impeachment attempt as fuel for gaining Democratic Party Senate seats. More than they want to get Trump, they want to get rid of all Republican Party obstruction throughout the House and the Senate and executive branch. They sustained quite a loss in 2016–Republicans took the House, the Senate, the White House, and several new governorships. They are still smarting. The want to restore power to the Democratic Party.
They are going to promise that they will complete the impeachment if the voters give them the Senate. Trump is the convenient politician they are hanging in effigy so as to focus their voters’ attention on an individual.
What do Pompeo, etc. have to do with your assertions as to the present state of evidence? Please provide a quote from Trump supporting the claim that he “demanded” an investigation as a quid pro quo.–fourth or fifth time I’ve asked this. Again, this is not a “trap;” it’s an attempt to inform myself.
My understanding is that McCarthy reached his conclusions from the admissions against interest provided by Trump himself in releasing his phone transcript.
I think this is the nub of the issue and NeverTrumpers are going to be saying coulda shoulda woulda for a long time. If Mueller had not flinched and had put Trump under oath during his investigation the man would have been reduced to a lying pile of jello within a half an hour, proven to be unfit for the office, and put out to pasture. Trump’s own attorneys, John Dowd and Jay Sekulow, are on record saying as much.
Posted incorrectly
I admit I haven’t read much of Andy’s work recently, since NR started to keep it behind a paywall. I’ll take your point in good faith then.
Let me amend my statement; I think Andrew Johnson was a worse President.
On the last day of Bill Clinton’s Presidency George Will wrote a column that ended: “… he was not the worst President we ever had, but he was the worst man we’ve had as President.”
I think that should be Trump’s epitaph.
Interesting quote by Will that I hadn’t heard. However, I don’t believe that it’s really possible to make these assessments across presidencies in different eras. Like it or not, the assessments are driven by what we know– and what we know is largely a product of public relations and media scrutiny. In short, there are filters, and I’m not going out on any limb by questioning whether those filters operate the same with a Republican, as with a Democrat. Do we really think Obama, for example, had much to worry about in this regard? Also, the level of scrutiny translating into “news” increases exponentially with each year. Was Woodrow Wilson a bad guy? There are some indications that he was, but how much do we really know, as compared to today?
She is an absolute delight. At the end of Comment #33, she states:
“If it’s a chilly evening, I suggest you put that printed copy of the Mueller Report on the fire, along with another log, toast some marshmallows, and enjoy a mug of hot chocolate.
“The rest of your comment is wishful prognostication. I don’t know what’s going to happen, but we’ll regroup in a year or so and see what actually did, shall we?”
I agree with She!
So let’s ask the direct questions of Pompeo, Perry and Bolton. This is what happens in trials. In Arizona, “victims” cannot be interviewed by the Defense Attorney before the trial, and defendants cannot be interviewed by the County Attorney before trial. So Pompeo, Perry and Bolton testify under oath, and can be asked about their contacts with the House’s 12 witnesses. That is why we have a trial, for a fearless search for truth.
I wish that Mueller had placed Trump under oath. But Trump screwed himself on July 25, 2019, the day after Mueller’s disastrous testimony. It is all in divine order.
lol. Not sure if you are damning with faint praise, or praising with faint damns, but . . . a sweet moment nonetheless.
Please see #43 above.
BWAHAHAHAH <hic>
Oh, goodness–please, please stop.
Heh. Heh, heh-heh. <sniffle>
I got this.
AHHAHAAAAHAHA!!!
Sorry, Booz, I need a moment.
I’ve met Jay Sekulow. He’s a pretty sharp cookie.
That’s why he begged Mueller not to put his client under oath.
Begged. Yeah. Through everything I’ve read about the matriculation of what became the Mueller report, and Team Trump’s handling of it, beg, begged, begging comes up so frequently.
Citation, please.
I’m never impressed by qualifiers such as “as much.” It’s the type of thing you read in the paper when the actual quotes don’t fit the narrative.
The “lying pile of jello” part is obviously just a speculative attack pretty much unworthy of the site.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/if-book-claims-are-true-trump-lawyers-resignation-makes-perfect-sense/