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
Of course there isn’t. I would think we would want our government to make sure that governments we give money to are free of corruption. Otherwise they just become a money laundering vehicle. (Which is what it looks like happened anyway.)
It’s worth noting that even the Obama State Department had concerns about Biden’s dealing in Ukraine. So why is it wrong for the Trump White House to ask questions about it? Because Orange Man Bad.
I won’t presume to get into either Michelle or Oprah’s head, but I do think both are unlikely anyway. Obama exacerbated some real dissatisfaction on the left. I’m not so sure that a cut rate version of the original would play any better than any of the weak field they have now. Also, whatever network Obama created might not automatically transfer to Michelle. Why should it? What experience does she have? did anyone learn from the Clinton nepotism experiment?
Oprah is a wildcard. She has enough money to do what she wants. I’m also not sure her success would translate or that her demo is broad enough for national politics. Although her money will assuredly attract all the sharks whispering sweet nothings into her ear about making history and stopping the Republicans and all that.
The answer I hear is that aid was only released because the whisteleblower came forward before the dastardly plan could be consummated.
IS Trump working to get corruption addressed anywhere? No. I can’t think of any country or “deal” with any country where Trump isn’t trying to eliminate corruption. Corruption in my mind is wasting tax payer dollars to countries or entities that have been mis-using our good intentions. There is a laundry list. The accusations towards Trump, including the call to impeach have been there since 2016 and before. Millions of more tax payer dollars and time have been spent on this – a.k.a. Mueller Report, as well as the agencies that were skewed against him, even the FISA court.
Did the Ukraine address corruption for Trump to release the hold on the funds? No. They were asked to address corruption which can’t be done in a month, but why keep sending aid if they are not going to address it?
Guilliani’s actions in the Ukraine are also well known. He talked about this in a television interview. Guliani’s research has revealed that Joe Biden, in charge of Ukraine under Obama, allowed his son to become involved in a corrupt company and benefit, and Joe Biden, pushed for the firing of someone looking into this corruption. The corruption evidence that is being turned over to Guliani is by the Ukrainian gov. The Democrats have opened a large can of worms.
This assumption is really what the Dems are hanging their hat on. Their entire case is based upon it. They think that it should somehow be so obvious as to have the force of law. But it’s just an assertion, and nothing more.
What if a president vetos a bill because he thinks he won’t be re-elected if he signed it. Maybe even a bill about foreign policy. This means that he has used the power of his office for political purposes. (Or, as the Dems say “personal political purposes”). To which the response is, So what? If signing the bill jeopardizes his re-election, that means that large numbers of Americans, not just the president, are ill-served by whatever the bill does. So you can’t easily distinguish between the nation’s interests and the president’s political interests.
There’s no way to draw a bright line between that scenario and what Trump is alleged to have done. And without a bright line, every future president is in jeopardy of being impeached for disagreeing politically with the opposition.
Only future Republican presidents, though.
But yes, their gripe appears to be “The President is using the authority vested in him by the Constitution, and we don’t like that!
I think that David French has it just about right. He writes:
If I had to sum up the case against Donald Trump in one sentence, it would be this: The available evidence demonstrates that the president of the United States attempted to coerce an allied nation to investigate a self-serving, debunked conspiracy theory and a prominent domestic political rival as a precondition to receiving vital American military aid. If I have another sentence to expand on the claim, I’d add that he attempted to accomplish this scheme by using his private attorney to supplement and circumvent normal diplomatic channels for the purely personal benefit of the president.
The evidence in support of the contentions above is overwhelming, including—most importantly—the words of the president himself recorded in the memorandum of the conversation between him and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. Zelensky raised the possibility of purchasing much-needed Javelin missiles to bolster Ukrainian defenses in its shooting war with Russian, of our primary geopolitical foes. Trump responded with two explicit investigation requests—an investigation seeking a (mythical) Crowdstrike server in Ukraine and an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden.
https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/heres-the-legitimate-question-that
Once again, the idiotic “for the purely personal benefit of the president.”
What a stupid, transparent lie. As if he was benefiting financially, not politically and therefore by definition not personally. Because when a politician benefits politically in the American system, it’s because whatever he is doing is benefitting a multitude of Americans. In this case, maybe Trump thinks Biden being president would be bad for America. So he uses the power of his office to make that possibility less likely. Anyone who thinks that is an abuse of power must also think a president should be impeached for vetoing legislation because he thinks he wouldn’t be re-elected if he signed it, which is also an example of using the power of his office for political purposes..or “personal” political purposes.
The word “personal” is inserted by every single one of the impeachment proponents when discussing this, every single time. They know that the entire magic trick they’re trying to pull off depends on the audience not catching on to how they are being semantically tricked.
That “by definition” seems to be overplaying your hand. Can we not say that Nixon stood to gain personally from the Watergate burglary?
I think someone mentioned David French who mentioned something about a debunked conspiracy theory. I’m afraid he’ll have to be more specific. What has been debunked, and how is he sure what President Trump was referring to in that call? Not that it matters since he’s not been impeached for asking about debunked conspiracy theories. This is just the usual Orange Man Bad chumming.
French says that the evidence that President Trump coerced the Ukrainian president into investigating a political rival by withholding military aid is overwhelming. Hardly. It’s all inference and characterizations – of legitimate actions – all the way down.
The left wing leaders of the Democratic party dominate the media coverage of and believe they will win the elections. So far some polls suggest they may be right even in the absence of any credible candidates. Are we perhaps believing as the anti Nazi’s did and will wake up after elections horrified but still unaware of what it means. It means the end of the Republic. Calm and reassuring at first, then gradually the means for recovery will be eliminated. They let it slip away with Hillary and Trump. They will concentrate on not letting that happen again.
That burglary was motivated entirely for political purposes.
I suppose that every political benefit may come with some personal benefit. But I guess my point was that as long as the benefit is political, any personal benefit is irrelevant.
Bob makes a great point. Trump’s whole presidency so far has been anything but personal gain. He throws wrenches in everything that has not worked well for our country and has made a lot of enemies in the process. He doesn’t care if he isn’t popular with a particular country or group. He and his family have been the recipients of so much vitriol and I might add, his supporters, that I can’t imagine how they do it and stay positive.
Yes. David French is really good at mind-reading. Not only does he mind-read the President all the time, he’s constantly reading the minds of the President’s supporters and knows what’s in their dark, sinful hearts.
Oh, but there is. This is why there is currently an impeachment trial in the Senate. The democrats have two very solid charges: Trump is a republican, and Trump is an ass.
Neither of which I would consider in the high crimes and misdemeanors category; however, your mileage may vary.
Don’t forget the best one: He beat Hillary.
Crow, a Democrat is now speaking in the Senate hearing. He asks “why did Trump put a hold on aid earmarked for Ukraine, when we give aid to many countries – why Ukraine”, and not some other country? Let’s see……Interference in our elections was determined to have taken place in Ukraine, they seem to be linked to the Democrats, a new president got elected and Trump wanted these things looked at and corruption cleaned up, someone running for president in 2020 was in charge of Ukraine under the last administration when rampant corruption, and possible collusion, was taking place, and lastly, his son was prospering “bigly” from opportunities that could not have possibly come to him, but by the father. Trump has taken punches from this for 3 plus years. Anything else that we could enlighten Mr. Crow and the Democrats on?
I saw where Schiff, who is taking up all the air, actually said that the results of 2016 were questionable because of Trump’s association with Russia and Ukraine, and we could not trust that 2020 will be a fair election with him in the race, or something to that effect. So there – he said it – that’s what it is about. We cannot have a fair election if Trump is a candidate, even though the corruption in that region was linked to the Obama, Biden and Hilary camp. The inmates are running the asylum…..
Further, the Democrats are still convinced that Trump won because of this and not because of Obama and Hilary’s horrible policies and blunders.
Yes, multiple members (including Nancy and Schiff-for-brains) have made it clear over several different statements that this impeachment is an attempt to prevent him from winning again in 2020. They’ve found no crime, the impeachment is based on nothing, but there’s no way they’re going to let him win again.
And they know their candidates are various assortments of fruits and nuts who don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.
That’s why the Nevers are on board with these evildoers. Because they, too, want to prevent him from winning again.
Nevers are worse than Democrats because they pretend to be Republicans. At least Democrats are honest about being evil. Nevers are evil pretending to be good and brainwashing too many people in the process.
No.
Yes according to a Ukrainian court.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Except that this had nothing to do with what Manafort was convicted of. Except that, as the links report, the people who released the “Black Ledger” backed away from the claims after the election.
All of my links are exactly in context.