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
Your citation is a story that right in the URL says “if book claims are true”?
I believe Bob Woodward documents his work and has more integrity, or at least veracity, than Trump. I also believe OJ Simpson killed his wife. But if you want to believe poor little Trump is victimized on every single disputed event I can’t convince you otherwise. Sekulow has not disputed the account, from what I have heard.
Do you think Bob Casey made a deathbed confession to Woodward?
You’ve got me there. I’ll get you a year’s subscription to The Bulwark for that one.
Right in a perjury trap.
I am sure you would do so well in that
The very, very easy way to avoid a perjury trap is to tell the truth and the chips fall where they will.
C’mon @garyrobbins, you’re better than this. @hoyacon asked you a direct question: what is 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.”
You repeatedly deflect with comments about PP&B not testifying. What does that have to do with anything Hoyacon asked you?
Hoyacon doesn’t need my help here; I’m commenting because I’m also interested in your answer, if you ever deign to give a direct answer.
Well, I read the word allegedly, and I read the name “Bob Woodward.”
Yeah, Woodward. The guy for whom the comatose William Casey awoke, and nodded an affirmation of all the negative aspersions cast upon the Iran-Contra Affair. So, as a purported conservative you give Woodward any kind of credibility? Oookay.
If that’s the best you’ve got…
Epic Fail.
Yeah. Scooter Libby, Mike Flynn and George Papadoupoulis said the same thing.
No he’s not.
Gary’s a good guy. I hope when Trump has left the stage we can return to the better angels of our nature.
So . . . “I believe those whom I want to believe, and think credibility is a matter of whether someone disputes an accusation. ” Nice.
I think that I have to go back to my comment #31. Colin Powell famously said that battle decisions should be made when the decider has 40-70% of the information. I can’t give you THE proof of a bullet-proof foundation. Do I think that it exists? I think so. Do I know so? No. And can I prove it? No. But do I think that it is there? Yes. I look at excuse after excuse offered by Trump apologists, and note that they have failed some 26 times according to Charlie Sykes, I believe.
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates both “bet the company” and won more than once. Nancy Pelosi is betting her majority in the House. Trump is betting the future of the Republican Party.
In my world, the large majority of cases settle. But there comes a time where the other side will not act in good faith, and a trial is needed. Trump has eschewed any settlement in this situation. Unlike Clinton and Reagan who admitted error, Trump decided to tough it out like Nixon before him. Trump has doubled down over and over again. But, Nancy Pelosi has called Trump’s bluff. This thing is going to play out in a dynamic process.
And you are a lawyer.
Wow.
Every lawyer I know would advise against it.
Bad judgment is bad judgement. I’d be terrified to have Gary represent me in court.
I am having a great time in a different post about the Cannonball Run, with a new record of 27 hours, 25 minutes and 7 seconds from a location in New York City to a location in Redondo Beach. That post is entirely “Trump-Free.” I echo She in looking forward to all of this being over.
Never talk to the police
As long as you literally don’t beat your wife in my county, you have nothing to fear from me.
In a word, unbelievable.
Thanks @danok1. We should realize that @garyrobbins won’t be giving direct answers on this point.
Res ipse loquitur.
When Trump is gone, your statements will not be forgotten. I will always remember your comments. And those of the aNever Trump crowd.
Please. Having you defend me in court would be horrifying. There is no way I’d trust someone with your lack of judgment to defend me in court.
I do very well in my limited universe of family law in my sparsely populated county. (Coconino County is larger than the States of New Jersey and Connecticut combined, and we have only 7 Superior Court Judges.) I win far more than I lose. I have an ability to settle family law cases, and to know when to hold them and when to fold them.
Bryan, if you were facing criminal charges, I would decline to take your case. And if you needed to sue in a contract dispute, or after a car accident, I would decline your case.
But Bryan, I have seen your pride in your Eagle Scout son. If under some horrible circumstances, you needed for me to assert your rights to have frequent, meaningful and continuing parenting time access to your son, I would be honored to represent you. Let’s hope that that is never needed.
Blessings.
You think a client should walk into a perjury trap. No way.
Well, let’s see. I have had hundreds of clients testify in the last 27 years doing family law in Coconino County. One was charged with perjury. But that was because she lied and got caught.
The other clients benefitted from telling the judge their side of the story.
What’s this “we” … stuff?
If an FBI agent asked me for the time, I’d refuse to answer
Fellow conservatives.
I would too. I have read too many novels including the last one by C.K. Box that lead me to the conclusion that the F.B.I. Has agents who lie, and who work “two to one” to leverage. I might talk to them if I can record the interview.
But I would immediately seek to have an attorney friend contact them, or better yet a U.S. Attorney to cooperate.
A true story. A very close personal friend was in jail. I was her attorney of record, which allowed me to visit her at any time. I sent her stamps and envelopes as part of “attorney mail.” Ops, mistake, possibly criminal. I got called by a jail commander. I didn’t return the call. I went to an attorney friend and former prosecutor who answered the call. He made an inquiry for me. They couldn’t prosecute me through his hearsay statements. The jail commander said that they didn’t want to prosecute me, that they just didn’t want me to do it again. No problem, and no worries. I never made that mistake again.
Oh for crying out loud. As many have pointed out, the phrase “if book claims are true” right there in the link, pretty much knocks this on the head right out of the gate (to mix a couple of metaphors).
I actually went to, and read, the linked page (so no-one else has to). Jay Sekulow (who, as I said I’ve met and is a pretty sharp cookie) is not the person quoted in Woodward’s book as saying that Trump should be not put under oath to testify. That was John Dowd, who later resigned. The article also includes a disclaimer that, as reported in the Washington Examiner, Dowd later disputed the claims in Woodward’s book, and many of his other reported comments as well. So I’m not buying this as dispositive proof that Sekulow said something he’s not quoted as saying in the evidence provided, nor that anyone else actually did either.
Furthermore, the Washington Examiner article and this one from Time Magazine make it very clear that both Dowd and Sekulow have strenuously assert that, not only were the comments regarding Trump’s testimony never made, the meeting at which they were supposed to have been made (with Mueller) did not take place.
As for the “lying pile of jello” remark, I’m sorry that someone burst my bubble and told us it was speculative. I’d been searching the archives of Saturday Night Live, pretty sure that it must be another of those “I can see Russia from my house” remarks that takes on a life of its own with the able assistance of the left-wing media, but I guess it’s not even that. Sigh.
Yeah, I knew he wouldn’t, but I had to give it a shot.