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.
Impeachment and Getting My Facts Straight
I want to make sure I have the facts straight before the trial to impeach the president begins. They are as follows:
The President of the United States called and congratulated the newly elected president of Ukraine on his win. They chatted a few minutes and Trump asked if he would look into some of the corruption that has been going on for years in that country. While he was about to release aid to Ukraine, Trump did not mention a holding on any aid unless certain information was given to him. The newly elected president of Ukraine ran on cleaning up the corruption which has been rampant for a long time, especially under his predecessor, and said yes, he would.
Trump’s track record so far has been to look at “the books” so to speak, of every deal, and aid or support, regardless of country or subject, whether domestic or foreign, to see if it makes sense to continue, change or discard something, so that money that is turned over to the government by the taxpayers, is being rightly used.
Possibly information had gotten back to Trump that Joe Biden, who was in charge of relations with Ukraine, as Vice President under Barack Obama, that his son gained a lofty position on the board of a big gas outfit called Burisma. In a very murky way, money was going to his son who had no experience in this field. In addition, Joe Biden strong-armed people who were looking into his son’s relationship and rewards with this company, and asked that they be fired, and then bragged about in a a public forum. This same Joe Biden is asking the American people for the job of the top governmental position in our country: President.
Is it not in the interest of the American people to know if there are serious violations in the use of aid in general? Is it the prerogative of any president to hold aid? Is it even more in the interest of the American people to know if Biden used his position for favors to family members that involved money being paid to a member of his family that may be unscrupulous? Should Americans want aid to be sent to Ukraine if there is a corrupt usage of this money? Why did Barack Obama withhold aid to Ukraine, or not help them with Crimea or their defense, and did not assist them with their requests for help against an enemy on their border, until he was about to leave office?
Why would we want to elect Joe Biden if any of this were true? Would we want aid held up if the country was continuing to be corrupt? The money was immediately released to Ukraine anyway, with nothing exchanged except a request that the new president would clean things up. Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani has uncovered many documents showing details of what could be called serious corruption, and then some. Is this a can of worms that the Democrats, especially the last administration, does not want to come to light, so impeaching Trump is their last hope of getting him out of office? In addition, wouldn’t it also reverse much of what Trump has dismantled of the last administration’s policies, another incentive to impeach Trump, not to mention his possible re-election?
Do I have my facts straight, or is there other information I need to know as the trial unfolds? Am I misinformed on any of the above?
Published in General
You forgot, “Orange Man Bad!”
The Peter Schweizer book is out tomorrow, I think. I have pre-ordered it. It should explain much of the motivation of Democrats to try to force this toothpaste back into the tube.
https://www.amazon.com/Profiles-Corruption-Peter-Schweizer/dp/006289790X/
His “Clinton Cash” was 100% accurate.
I think the facts as stated are about right. But, to be fair, one can draw inferences from facts that, though not as clear-cut and inescapable as facts themselves, may nonetheless need to be addressed.
A reasonable inference that can be drawn from the facts is that President Trump deliberately delayed aid to Ukraine in order to extract a public announcement of an investigation of Joe Biden’s son at a time when such an investigation would be politically harmful to candidate Biden.
If that were the case, then that might reasonably be considered an abuse of Presidential authority; the President shouldn’t craft foreign policy with his reelection, rather than the nation’s interests, as his primary focus.
However, it’s probably impossible to prove that this was his intention. Further, it’s certainly impossible to prove that it was his singular purpose in withholding aid: he can plausibly say that corruption was his primary concern, and there’s no practical way to disprove that.
Having said all that, it is by no means clear that a law has been broken and, more to the point, the House failed to make the case or the claim that a law has been broken. Given that their articles of impeachment don’t appear to meet the Constitutional requirement for removal from office (nor, frankly, for impeachment itself), I expect this to die in the Senate, as it should.
My own opinion remains unchanged: I think the President made a rookie mistake, and should have been scolded for it — or the Democrats should have brought it to the public’s attention as a campaign strategy, without launching a doomed impeachment effort that draws more attention to them than to the President. I think it will fail, will inoculate the President against similar efforts in the future, cheapens the impeachment process, and redounds to the shame of a rapidly deteriorating Democratic party.
I have never really understood this as an argument for Trump’s actions with Ukraine. It seems to me that Biden would be his preferred opponent in 202 since he could hang the Obama administrations failures – both economic and foreign policy – on Biden.
Henry, can you clear up the timeline on the Ukraine thing: Was Biden an announced candidate for the presidency when the phone call took place. I haven’t been able to pin down the date of his announcement.
April 25, 2019.
I have long thought Biden the most formidable opponent for Trump*. Biden has about him the air of a seasoned Democratic politician, someone with some gravitas. I think he’s a hack, and wrong about most things, but I suspect he will play well with the base. It’s hard to brand him a high risk alternative or dismiss him as insubstantial.
* That is, most formidable of the likely candidates. I still worry that either Michelle or Oprah might enter the race.
Nah, that’s not gonna happen. Michelle enjoyed the perks of being worshiped as first lady and taking multiple trips and vacations using Other People’s Money. She and her husband are now earning the big bucks just for existing. She doesn’t need the hassle of presidenting, too. Whereas the Clintons wanted both power and money, the Obamas just wanted the money.
Henry – Its impossible to prove, as you stated above, that Trump deliberately withheld aid until a public announcement was made that there would be a Biden investigation by Ukraine, because the aid was soon released and no announcement by the new Ukrainian president to do such a thing took place. Doesn’t that prove that was not his intention?
I don’t think that this is a reasonable inference, at least not based on the transcript of the call (here). I have not waded through the other evidence, but then as far as I know, there is no other significant evidence — just opinions of people based on hearsay.
I just reviewed it again, and I don’t see anywhere in the transcript that President Trump even mentioned withholding aid. I also don’t see anywhere in the transcript that President Trump asked for a public announcement regarding Biden or his son.
As far as I can tell, this is the sum total of the discussion about Biden in the transcript:
Nothing about a quid pro quo, nothing about withholding aid, nothing about a public announcement.
Moreover, the President was basically right about Biden bragging that he got a particular prosecutor fired. Perhaps this was an innocent action by Biden, perhaps not. This is what needs to be resolved, actually.
Frankly, the whole thing seems to be a bizarre conspiracy theory arising out of quite an innocent conversation, based on fantasy projections of evil motive and a bunch of implied winks and nods.
Based on most of his public statements, speeches, and the debates, Joe Biden has the air of a scatter-brained, history-fabricating, addled old crackpot. It’s amazing that he’s managed to last in the race this long.
It’s actually amazing that 80% of the Democratic candidates have managed to last this long without being laughed off the stage and out of the race.
“Journalists” are the only people watching.
Biden should have gone out satisfied with his political life after Obama. I think he may have been talked into it – clearly not working. He and his family are not benefiting from this latest involvement in politics. Neither Michele Obama, Oprah for Pete’s sake, or Hillary would have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. None are presidential material.
Several things argue against this. (I haven’t followed this closely, so I’m open to being corrected.)
I’m not sure how reasonable it is to infer from this that Trump’s motivation was to take down a political opponent.
Also, we have Joe Biden on video admitting to essentially what Trump is being accused of. If Trump was motivated to use this to “take Biden out,” I think it more likely that he’d simply have taken to Twitter to call attention to it. That’s much more his style.
What does that have to do with anything? I offer you Barrack Obama. And Jimmy Carter.
I personally think that the strongest candidate that the Democrats could possibly run against Trump is Oprah Winfrey. Her race and gender are correct. She’s famous and well-liked. She communicates very well and knows how to project emotion on stage. Compare her communication and performance skills against Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren. Lots of variables, hard to say, but I think she would have a much better chance against Trump than any of the candidates in the Democrat primary.
I also can’t imagine that she’d want the job, so I doubt she’ll run. But I’ve given up predicting stuff like that…
Dr. – you make a good point in Oprah’s oral skills and reminds us that Trump was once a TV personality. Her race and gender are correct? That to me is irrelevant to being qualified, and I’m female.
This is all correct and we’ve been over this so many times it’s kind of infuriating that people still refuse to acknowledge these basic known facts.
It was evident with Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination process, and was evident in the House bringing impeachment charges against Trump that our judicial processes have become guilty until proven innocent. From the beginning of the impeachment charges, there was control over information being shared (withheld), control over what witnesses could be called and control over what questions could be asked.
Now the House is expecting to control how the Senate proceeds with the information given them to work with. It was up to the House to prove their case before turning over the impeachment documents, not for the Senate to further prove anything. Is our country’s legal system based on innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent, and oh, wait, we’ll keep digging until we do find something that you might be guilty of, a.k.a. The Mueller Report?
I share your view. But I strongly suspect that we would be in the minority on that point.
Just trying to construct an analogy for the Dems impeachment theory…
Let’s say we have a “kidnapper” who has a scheme to get million dollar payoff. But he fails to mention to the parents that he’s kidnapped their kid — and, in fact, he hasn’t kidnapped the kid — and instead of demanding a ransom, our nefarious “kidnapper” simply asks the parents to “do me a favor and give me a million bucks.”
#LockHimUp #BelieveAllDemocrats
Very interesting – maybe do a book review when you read it? The swamp runs so deep..
The glaring fact in the impeachment farce is that it began 19 minutes after Trump was inaugurated. It was being threatened before he was elected. “Show me the man and I will show you the crime.” L Beria.
Not for you, but for the Democratic Party and it’s racists and misandrists.
Most of your facts are not facts.
But first let’s go to Trump and the “beautiful” call. First, Trump was asking for the Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden’s business relations in the Ukraine. He is asking a foreign government with an iffy judicial system to target a US citizen. Now, Trump has no particular interest in corruption (Manafort as an example) so it was quite clear that his goal was to tarnish Joe Biden. Note he also seems to believe in the “CrowdStrike” server conspiracy theory (CrowdStrike is a California company, one of whose founders was Ukrainian, but born in Russia). Having Giuliani involved in the Ukraine seems to point to Giuliani as the possible source for Trump’s belief in the wacky theory.
While Trump did not directly threaten the Ukrainian president with the hold up of the aid, it also would follow that they would put 2 and 2 together. The aid was specifically provided by an act of congress, which Trump signed, but Trump himself did not provide the aid. As an act of congress, the administration cannot hold the aid (note: not the first administration to do something similar).
For the second article, obstruction of congress. As some time every administration does this at some level. The Trump administration has taken it to a higher level. Remember, Congress has a constitutional duty of oversight for the executive. Hard to do without information.
The president is clearly his own worst enemy, and he has done most of what is alleged. The question is quite simple: does it rise to the level of an impeachment conviction? Pres. Clinton’s actual felonies did not, so this looks iffy.
He will not be convicted. But that is not an exoneration.
Awful lot of mind-reading there. Which is to say that your complaint about how we need to stick to facts rings pretty hollow.
No, based on Trump statements and actions. IS Trump working to get corruption addressed anywhere? No. Did the Ukraine address corruption for Trump to release the hold on the funds? No. The hold was released because it became known and was an obvious embarrassment.
And in the infamous call, he asked the Ukrainian president about CrowdStrike. And again it is a California company with no ties in the Ukraine. And also recall that Trump held on to the “birther” conspiracy for a long time. And Guilliani’s actions in the Ukraine are also well known. He talked about this in a television interview.
And yes, the ask by Trump was very clear. And yes, the Ukrainians knew the aid had been held up.
Oh, golly! There’s no escape for him now!
Wishes will not make it so. There is no case. This has been an attempted coup from the start. They even announced it. The call was a pretext. They did not expect him to immediately release the transcript.
Links please. Not to the transcript of the call – we know. When did the Ukrainians know that aid had been held up and who knew it and what was the reaction/result? The Ukrainian president said that he didn’t know nor did he feel pressure at the time of the call or afterwards.
Otherwise Drew is correct: you are inferring and mind reading up the wazoo. You have no idea what President Trump is working to address; you have no idea why funds were held or why they were released; what you claim to be “very clear” is all interpretation and characterization on your part.
I was with you until this paragraph. Just because people don’t like it doesn’t make it a mistake. I don’t think there was anything wrong in asking about corruption.