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.
No Quid. No Pro. No Quo. Adam Schiff Has To Go!
No doubt there are disagreements among the President and his staff all the time. It is the staff’s job to help the president achieve his goals tactically, politically and legally. And I assume that these conversations can be difficult and painful, especially when dealing with a headstrong chief executive. So when I read that the President and his national security advisor discussed delaying aid to Ukraine for the reasons cited, I’m not surprised. That is why the executive branch is allowed “executive privilege,” so that these conversations and deliberations can be confidential, hence frank, honest, contrary and dare I say, even heated. The final result is all that matters.
I can imagine Trump’s frustration with the entire Joe and Hunter Biden situation. He sees this outrageous profiteering right there, in plain sight. In his position, who would not want this situation to be outed? It smacks of corruption. The Bidens’ Ukraine adventures are not somehow legitimized, and Joe Biden inoculated, just because he happens to be seeking the Democrat candidacy.
The “Crowdstrike” reference is disturbing. Suffice it to say that it isn’t really paranoia if they actually are out to get you, though the President needs to be briefed more fully on the final conclusions of the DNC server hack investigation.
What matters is that the aid was released and before the statutory timeframe. The Ukraine President admitted he knew nothing of any hold on promised funds and never felt pressured to do anything. And finally, there was no investigation announced or initiated. No quid. No pro. No quo.
Published in Politics
Very cogently stated. Case dismissed. (And, thankfully, no photos of Schiff.)
Yes, good summary of issues at hand. I’d also like to add that this Bolton “bombshell” be disregarded. Thinking back on these past three years and the attention that has been given to rumor, (unconfirmed) leaks and inuendo with Trp and Kavanaugh – one of the ways to make it stop, to dry up a bit of the swamp, is to not let leaks like this that weren’t formally uncovered through sanctioned investigatory processes be disregarded.
Well put
This whole thing opens vast new avenues for defense of anyone accused of using a computer in the commission of a crime.
”Your honor, I don’t have to turn my computer over to the FBI because my cousin Murray ran Malwarebytes on the hard drive and he says it must have been Russian hackers.”
You will be able to hire private investigators to do the forensic evidence gathering for all kinds of cases. The possibilities are endless.
Mulvaney just released a statement saying that what is in Bolton’s book about him is inaccurate.
And here we have on Ricochet against the code of conduct out right conspiracy mongering and propagation, but because it is all in service to Trump and Trumpism I doubt it will be treated by the powers that be as it should be.
Literally everything in this paragraph is a lie, and a demonstrative lie. Yet here it is gracing our “reasonable” conversation. Crowdstrike is an American company. It is based in California. US security agencies had access to the disk images of the servers (which is as good as having the physical servers). In fact that is the same thing that Crowdstrike had access too since Crowdstrike doesn’t own and has never had possession of the physical servers that were used by the DNC. As they were brought in after the attack to investigate it on the DNCs behalf as a private entity. Everything they had access to the FBI also had access too.
Adherence to this conspiracy either makes you a foolish or malicious, and most likely both. Pathetic.
We live in an insular world. I repeated what I discovered researching the topic, before the Mueller investigation was completed. This is the power of counter-intelligence and quite possibly Russian planted conspiracy theories meant to direct attention to rival Ukraine in the DNC server hacks to which they were connected. I also don’t believe that Crowdstrike was public at the time of the DNC investigation. I stand guilty of repeating a discredited conspiracy and I apologize. It was not malicious and does not alter
my conclusion. I will also say this in my defense. Given the actions of certain actors in the FBI, Justice department and the CIA in continued harassment of President Trump, it is difficult to have confidence in those institutions where Trump is concerned.
The mention of Crowdstrike in the call transcript is disturbing. But remember, it is not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Well shoot.
I had a whole answer typed out and hit the wrong button on my mouse which acted like the back key and all my typing is gone… and frankly I don’t know if I have the will to write it out all again…so I will just make the following points.
I accept your correction is the spirit of reasonable conversation. It is good to see that disinformation can be undone or at least halted. As my priest likes to say to me on occasion “Go forth and sin no more”.
All this said I still disagree with your entire assessment of the situation. You give Trump way too much credit and slack, when nothing in his past behavior indicates that he deserves any. He is a conspiratorially minded person, especially if a conspiracy redounds to his perceived benefit. He does not need better information and briefings, he needs to be a better person. The fault for his pushing of Crowdstrike Conspiracy is his. He undoubtedly has been briefed by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the whole alphabet soup of agencies on these issues. He chooses to ignore them. And in turn his supporters choose to ignore his actions and words because they like the policy Mitch McConnell is implementing thanks to Trumps presence in the oval office ie. judges. You find excuse and excuse for his terrible behavior because it suits you. You are enabling him and all his worst tendencies. And so there will be more of it and not just form him but also future administration whose policies you will find less endearing or whose victims you will think more sympathetic than the Ukrainians.
In the end I should point out the Inspector General laid out the incompetence of the FBI in the whole Russian affair. But, while Trump supporters shouted for more accountability for all of those people lower down on the executive chain I hear no such calls of accountability for the man who sits at the top of the executive branch. Instead I hear excuses.
Bolton went from being a dangerous man to a hero when he left, or was fired from, the Trump administration.
I see the NTs are out and about with this new “bombshell.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/bolton-blows-up-trump-teams-foolhardy-quid-pro-quo-defense/
This is Andy McCarthy’s hysterical reaction to Bolton’s book sales ploy.
As for Crowdstrike, I’m sure you have an excellent explanation of why the DNC choose not to allow the FBI to inspect the server. The “hack”was an obvious inside job with a thumb drive. Why did Crowdstrike, that patriotic all American company, tell the DNC story with a straight all American patriotic face ? Download speeds were not compatible with the Crowdstrike story but we will not criticize that all American patriotic company.
Funny how that “leaked” at such an opportune time to roil the media during the Senate operation for pumped up curiosity (sales) just as a book was about to roll out. Written by someone more than willing to hurt Trump on a personal basis no matter what he might actually have witnessed (of a thing not universally thought to even be a crime). A friend wrote this morning:
And then it crossed my mind….showing how this whole thing has affected a previously “normal” person….that there are bound to be hidden cross-links in the publications industry. It was noted that a leak about the manuscript reached the NY Times….but why couldn’t the Times have asked someone on the inside of the book editing staff to exaggerate anything remotely juicy to feed them at a critical moment? Or deep press people of the progressive faith just kept in touch and hatched this without prodding?
Rudy Giuliani may have been trying to play Rasputin – manipulating Trump for personal gain. From what I’ve read, Giuliani has been feeding conspiracy tales to Trump non-stop. Even if this were true, it doesn’t let Trump off the hook. Moreover, a President who can be played like that is a danger to himself and to the country.
If Bolton’s book does, in fact, contain the allegations claimed by the NYT, it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which Bolton acted honorably.
Either the allegations are true or they’re false. If false, then he lied.
Either he was the source of the leak or he wasn’t. If he was the source, then he either did it to increase book sales and is, therefore, dishonorable; or he did it because he wanted the truth to get out. If the latter, then why didn’t he testify when asked by the House? Why insist on a subpoena? Why not tell the truth to the nearest reporter?
If he wasn’t the source of the leak, then he was prepared to let Trump be exonerated by the Senate even though he knew that the President was guilty. His dereliction of duty would have been made public with the release of his book.
Vindman’s twin brother is the NSC staff person assigned to vet any book for security issues. It is a lead pipe cinch he is the NYT source, unless Bolton did it. Bolton has to know about the Vindman twins so he is also culpable. It is possible that Bolton had an argument with Trump but we have the transcript of the call. This sure looks like a back stab by Bolton.
I wish there were criminal actions we could bring up against him. What he has perpetuated is a crime.
I suspect that Trump doesn’t have a problem with profiteering.
The aid was held, and did not follow its normal path through the system. Which is why the DOD was anxiously inquiring about it. The statutory time frame has a different purpose. The Ukrainians knew of the hold by early to mid August. But I’d not trust a lot that comes out of there at this point.
So you have Bolton, a long time, principled conservative known as a straight shooter, often time too honest for a diplomat. And a president who has a long history of trouble with the truth. Whom do you believe?
First rule of holes: stop digging.
Fixed it for you.
As I said elsewhere, I’ll take a big wait-and-see on this one.
Good luck. There is no doubt that Trump put the hold on. No one else would dare to do this without direct orders.