The impeachment effort against President Trump hinges on his motives. Presidents have wide discretion when dealing with foreign governments, and Mr. Trump’s actions have all been within the scope of his office’s power. But has he used that power for personal gain?
Ukrainian prosecutors took an interest in possible corruption involving Burisma Holdings, the company that paid Hunter Biden tens of thousands of dollars per month to serve on its board, long before Mr. Trump became president. And the Obama administration, including Vice President Joseph Biden, used America’s clout to influence Ukraine’s government. The questions about these relationships that Mr. Trump has pressed Ukraine to answer were matters of established public concern. A president has a right to seek answers about them, whether or not doing so has collateral implications for an election....
The very “norms” by which Washington operates, covering everything from America’s objectives in foreign policy to the imperative of multilateral trade deals to the legal ways in which career politicians and their families can make millions off their connections, are seen by Mr. Trump and his voters as the source of the country’s ills — from endless wars to declining manufacturing employment to the unresponsiveness of politicians in both parties to the country’s pain....
President Trump was doing exactly what voters elected him to do when he asked President Zelensky to account for Ukraine’s dealings with the Bidens. It’s a question related to the overall system linking American politicians with Ukrainian interests....
२० नोव्हेंबर, २०१९
"Trump Is Doing Exactly What He Was Elected to Do/Don’t impeach him. His actions have all been within the scope of the presidency."
A NYT op-ed, by Daniel McCarthy, editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Quarterly.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२६५ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 265 पैकी 201 – 265"We now have proof of bribery."
~ Ken Starr
Stephen said...
The idea that Trump’s voters elected him so that he could use public resources and the power of his office to squeeze private benefits out of foreign governments or recruit foreign governments to issue fake news bulletins directed at his leading political opponent is ludicrous.
In an otherwise outstanding post this is the only misstep. This is exactly why they voted for Trump and continue to support Trump. He is their Roy Cohn.
Skylark,
And the "anti-corruption" ambassador was working with Soros-employed or Soros-associated people. That was the extent of her "anti-corruption" choices. In an amazing coincidence the new Ukrainian government has been hostile to those Soros-connected NGOs.
How weird is that?
I would classify almost every point the Leftists made above "argument by assertion" and it's boring.
The phrase "private benefit" is a great example.
sunsong said...
"We now have proof of bribery."
~ Ken Starr
11/21/19, 6:10 AM
Starr has absolutely zero credibility. I couldn't care less about what he thinks
Skylark said...
I welcome a challenge on any of my points above based on original sources, BTW.
11/21/19, 6:08 AM
Challenge accepted:
Zelensky brought up the Bidens first.
I thought this was strange so I checked the transcript and Biden (Joe or Hunter) were mentioned three times by name all by President Trump.
And this was just the first one I checked. :)
The idea that Trump’s voters elected him so that he could use public resources and the power of his office to squeeze private benefits out of foreign governments or recruit foreign governments to issue fake news bulletins directed at his leading political opponent is ludicrous.
I couldn't find just a few sentences that accurately defined you position. So this snippet is just an example of the narrative Schiff is attempting, and failing, to craft.
It's a great narrative. Now just name those persons that have given facts to to support the accusations.
I thought last nites testimony from Laura Cooper, was illustrative of the deep state setting a narrative, yet very noticeable in its lack of facts.
Cooper added to her secret testimony she already gave. Her story, and I paraphrase from memory.
She said he staff came to her after her secrect tesitomy became public, and informed her of emails, and staff meetings with Ukraine, State dept personnel that asked about defensive military aide. She did not identify, by name the staff, that made these claims. She stated, if she read the e mails, she did not remember them. The staff could not identify which meeting, when they took place, where they took place, who was there, and or itinerary of the meeting. Laura Cooper did not provide copies of the mystery e mails, that her staff did not forward to her (of no importance?). Cooper did not recall the e mails(of no importance?. Cooper was also careful to never claim, Ukraine was upset there was a delay of the military aide to provide self defensive weapons. Something Democrats, and the Obama Administration were against, and never had been provided in the past.
To sum up the Testimony of Laura Cooper. She amended her earlier testimony To provide testimony she had no first hand knowledge of, and provide zero proof to support events, she had at her fingertips. Copies of e mails and calenders, and meeting itinerary, attendees, and notes, supporting the claims.
Schiff dutifully asked a list of followup questions. He was obviously aware to the new information before Cooper started talking. Schiff made the point that she was the first to identify Ukraine was aware of the delay as early as the day of the phone call. A convenient coincidence, provided by unprovable hearsay.
Iowan2 said...
Ukraine was aware of the delay
One small hint might have been the fact that the money never arrived, despite a bipartisan vote in Congress. It is rare for someone to fail to note that $400 million in promised funds has not arrived.
I see the lefties stayed up late to post nonsense.
Ford vs Ferrari was better.
Seeing Red said...
Good-bye, Franklin Templeton. I hope you don’t have any money there.
All of my investments are through them. My worst nightmare has arrived. Never knew that Templeton was such a big Fucking Democrat.
ARM, get up to speed. The self defense, military weapons aide, was delivered. 86% of it. Well within normal response, according to Laura Copper, The witness Schiff called back to public testimony, to compose "evidence" he needed.
iowan2- great summary of Cooper's testimony.
And I love that Ukraine passed their anti-corruption test for military aid while the corrupt guy was still in office, and signed off just days after the new guy was elected. It seems like a system built to make sure the US spends as much of our money as possible.
I also find it interesting that the Democrats, when talking about Yavanovich, never mention that Zelinski himself calls her bad news.
Obama: You get blankets, MREs, and angry tweets.
Ukrainian people: That's not helpful.
Democratics: Obama is dreamy.
Trump: You get Javelin missiles to destroy tanks.
Ukrainian people: Thank you.
Democratics: How dare Trump delay aid? Harrumph!
Right, ARM?
Yavonavich was a Soros puppet, I believe.
iowan2 said...
86% of it.
Could you provide a link to support your claim that 86% of the $391 million in held up aid currently under discussion was in fact delivered?
ARM is handing out homework assignments.
Cool.
Lance. See amended testimony. Zelensky brought up Burisma first. It’s pretty funny that the Bidens and the Democrats in general are so invested in protecting the honor of a politician who has basically raped Ukraine’s energy resources, and likely, siphoned off billions in foreign aid.
http://buffalorange.com/topic/32511-house-releases-2-more-transcripts-one-of-which-is-amended-in-favor-of-trump/
BCA Reasonable Man- it was in the hearing last night. 86% (or 88%) was delivered.
Then it shouldn't be hard to provide a link.
Yavanovich said something about the Burisma bribe or someone stealing a bribe from money the FBI had put in place? Did anyone else understand what the FBI had to do with it?
sunsong said...
"We now have proof of bribery."
~ Ken Starr
11/21/19, 6:10 AM
Starr has absolutely zero credibility. I couldn't care less about what he thinks
More importantly sunsong is pedaling a lie (by omission). What Starr said (paraphrasing) is Schiff's position is that we now have proof of bribery. The dishonest media (and commenters) put out the truncated version. Shameful, but only for those capable of shame.
Do your own homework, shitheel.
I should add that if such an obvious lie is your biggest bombshell of the day, you got nuttin.
But,if you only listen to MSNBC you got Hiroshima.
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/trump-impeachment-hearing-coverage-laura-cooper-david-hale-testimony-live-stream-2019-11-20/
$35 Million yet to be released
I guess that Burisma paid good money for this kind of cover from the Democrats.
Here’s an odd twis! It seems like Ukrainian oligarchs (robber barons) who contributed to Clinton Foundation avoided prosecution!
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1197385678725750784
Are you proud of politicians who project an image of corruption abroad? I mean venal corruption, as in 8 figure piles of filthy lucre?
Of course the Ukrainian theives go for the 9 figure payouts, leaving pols like the Bidens and the Clintons drooling.
Skylark,
The number I saw was 10 digits to the left of the decimal place.
More than 7 billion allegedly stolen.
You are correct, please adjust my comments upwards by a factor of ten.
" It seems like a system built to make sure the US spends as much of our money as possible.”
The testimony shows that part of the pressure to release the aid came from arms dealers calling the Pentagon.
"All of my investments are through them.[ Franklin Templeton]”
I would hope that your investments are only managed by them and are in your name. That’s how its supposed to work, to protect you against this kind of thing. I keep my money with Bank of America, all of the assets they are managing are mine, except possibly what they are keeping in cash at any particular time.
That’s laughable that ARM, who refuses to provide links over and over, or even to acknowledge rebuttals to his arguments, should demand a link. I wouldn’t give him one on general principles.
MayBee said...
$35 Million yet to be released
This is after they became aware of the whistleblower. Self-evidently this doesn't count. At this point they already knew that they were in deep shit.
Skylark said...
I wouldn’t give him one on general principles.
No you wouldn't do it because you are an angry idiot.
Obama: You get blankets, MREs, and angry tweets.
Ukrainian people: That's not helpful.
Democratics: Obama is dreamy.
Trump: You get Javelin missiles to destroy tanks.
Ukrainian people: Thank you.
Democratics: How dare Trump delay aid? Harrumph!
ARM: And that aid doesn't count anyway because reasons and stuff.
Amended to reflect ARM's latest.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
MayBee said...
$35 Million yet to be released
This is after they became aware of the whistleblower. Self-evidently this doesn't count. At this point they already knew that they were in deep shit.
I want to point out nobody said 85% was released before the whistleblower. Just that they have, in fact, gotten 86% of the money. There was a 55 day delay. The javelinas also went through without delay.
So a completely irrelevant factlet, designed to sow confusion rather than enlighten. Now there's a surprise.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
So a completely irrelevant factlet, designed to sow confusion rather than enlighten. Now there's a surprise.
No, a fact to point out it was delayed, not denied.
ARM is very upset that Trump delayed funding within its legal limits so that Ukrainians could defend themselves with more than blankets and MREs that Obama gave them for eight years.
Greater flexibility and all that.
That all makes perfect sense if one is immoral.
MayBee said...
No, a fact to point out it was delayed, not denied.
It was denied until they found out that they were in deep shit. They stole the lunch money and then when a video of them stealing the lunch money was posted on YouTube they gave the money back.
For some very odd definitions of "deep shit" maybe.
It is decidedly not "deep shit" for the president to set foreign policy.
"t was denied until they found out that they were in deep shit. “
ARM has a ton of evidence on this, of course, that he can cite, which also accounts for the fact that “they” also delayed funding to Lebanon and Central America at the same time for purportedly the same reasons per sworn testimony.
Remember just last Friday when the headline was that somebody from OMB had “flipped” on Trump on this issue and they deposed that person on Sat, and guess what? Another damp squib. This is the impeachment of the damp squibs.
The trick, ARM, is to not believe the first draft out of the MSM before the Republicans have had a chance to ask questions.
Damp sqib pro quo.
"At this point they already knew that they were in deep shit.”
So we have circumstantial evidence of a “crime” for which the only evidence it even occured is hearsay. Does that feel like thinking, to you ARM?
Oh yeah, and the name calling was a nice touch. Very Aristotle of you!
Crazy Jane,
"All I want is a much smaller government"
Sorry, babe, that's not on offer.
Skylark,
"Damp sqib pro quo"
That is total genius! We are not worthy...
hahahahaha!
Skylark said...
I welcome a challenge on any of my points above based on original sources, BTW.
Your focus seems to be on the legitimacy of the Crowd-strike request, not so much on the Biden request.
1. Ukraine clearly interfered in US elections. Mueller concluded no. Senate Intelligence committee concluded no. Trump's homeland advisor advised him nothing to the theory. Every witness who has testified has said that the theory is bunk. In any event if there was such interference it would be a federal crime--wouldn't you want Barr--Trumps loyal and effective AG--to conduct the investigation, if there was anything to it and you really wanted to get to the bottom of it? This was a dead end and Trump already knew it-an announcement was as good an outcome as Trump-Giuliani could imagine.
2. Your theory of why the Ambassador was fired is not supported in the record that I've seen. It's inconsistent with the uniform testimony about her excellent service and devotion to fighting corruption, the fact that her superiors told her she had done nothing wrong, and that her removal appears to have resulted, at least in part, from corrupt activity by Ukrainians, including lies by former Ukrainian officials, that is now the subject of a federal indictment.
3. My point re the phone calls was that Trump was not interested in Ukrainian internal corruption. Twice his staff drafted corruption talking points for his calls with Zelensky. Twice he skipped them. All he was interested in was investigations that could impact his prospects in the 2020 election. Sondland said the same after getting off the phone with Trump on July 26.
4. Zelensky brought up the Bidens first. Actually, in the transcript of the July 25 call it looks as though Trump is first to mention the Bidens by name, top of p. 4.
So I'm not seeing any evidentiary support for your points, I assume that if such support exists the senior officials in the Trump administration--and the relevant documents--would be the best source. What do you make of the fact that all that material has been withheld?
John Henry,
Re Trump's tax returns --
I happen to live in Washington state come which I like to call the perfect median State because we are 1/50 of the states, with approximately 1/50 of the population, and 1/50 of the GDP. so as regards population and economy, we should be a perfect microcosm of the country as a whole.
Well, somebody I know is a small business owner who tried to open a second location of their business. After a couple of years of hemorrhaging cash flow, they finally pulled the plug on the new spot and are regrouping and concentrating their efforts on their original location.
Because of the aforementioned cash flow issues, they got behind on their taxes, and they now have a payment plan with both of our state department of revenue and the highly esteemed Federal IRS to make up that deficit.
So you tell me: if some tiny family-owned business, in a very far flung corner of the American Empire, with a tiny revenue that I doubt even reaches a single million dollars per year, did not escape the attention of the IRS.... what are the chances of this very high-profile New York City and other big city real estate developer has something hidden in his tax returns that has not yet come to light? It's got to be a zero, no matter how many decimal points you extended to...
MayBee said...
No, a fact to point out it was delayed, not denied.
It was denied until they found out that they were in deep shit. They stole the lunch money and then when a video of them stealing the lunch money was posted on YouTube they gave the money back.
Alternate theory: "whistleblower" and the good Lt Col were concerned Trump might actually get Zelinski to investigate the Bidens, and they did not want that. Trump spoke about those two issues with Zelinski because nobody else was asking them that and he really wanted those investigations to happen. In the week leading up to the release of the hold, several groups met with the Ukrainians and came back to Trump and gave him a good report about their other corruption efforts. Because of that, Trump was going to release the money, and Schiff had to release the whistleblower report fast so that they could still use it and keep Biden from being investigated.
The New York Times reported on Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.
All the papers learned of the Black Book RE: Paul Manafort; that was Ukrainian involvement.
Debunked is an overused word.
Often it is used by imbeciles.
Also, during this time Trump had been hearing for 3+ years that he was a Russian agent, was in collusion with Putin, and that John Brennan and Adam Schiff had absolute evidence he had conspired with Russia to win the campaign. All that time, he knew he had not. So perhaps we can all excuse him a little for not just taking the IC's word about what Russia did or did not do.
The idea that Trump’s voters elected him so that he could use public resources and the power of his office to squeeze private benefits out of foreign governments or recruit foreign governments to issue fake news bulletins directed at his leading political opponent is ludicrous.
There is no point in even trying to engage in this level of stupidity.
It's beyond hope. And so is this country.
Hey all you folks pushing the Ukrainian interference theory. Here's Dr. Fiona Hill:
"Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country—and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.
"The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.
....
"Right now, Russia’s security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. We are running out of time to stop them. In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests."
Wake up, people. Trump and his defenders are feeding you Putin's narrative!
Keep trying, Stephen.
John Brennan's contributions to your ignorance are noted.
Birkel,
You'd be more persuasive if you could engage on the merits.
Not sure what you mean by the John Brennan reference.
Oh, I know better than to engage on substance with a troll.
And I'm sure you don't get the Brennan reference.
You're poorly informed, after all.
Birkel,
Since when is it trolling to post a reasoned response to an article linked by Professor Althouse and then to respond to posts disagreeing with that response? It would be a weird blog where someone like that was viewed as a troll. You're not required to respond to me--but it's silly to suggest that I am somehow violating the norms of this blog by advancing a reasoned view that you strongly disagree with but don't care to engage.
Yeah, you're a troll.
You wouldn't care what evidence is presented.
Own it.
The quote from ARM when he called me out, for proof. Then moved the goal posts to strike the word, never, to not until after the WB
One small hint might have been the fact that the money never arrived,
Silly me I took, never, to mean, never.
Thanks to MayBee, for providing the link. I wasn't inclined to. For the very reason as things played out. Proof provided, goal posts moved. It is a never ending ploy by the left, because the facts rarely support their preferred ideology.
It is obviously deceptive to imply that the money arrived without acknowledging that it took a whistle-blower to create the pressure necessary to remove the block on the money.
Troll-like deceptive.
Wake up, people. Trump and his defenders are feeding you Putin's narrative!
My favorite part when when she said the same thing about anti-fracking people.
Sure ARM.
Run with that.
Grab the scissors first.
Several countries' aid packages were stalled.
And because federal government decision making is always executed at light speed, the timing means A caused B.
You sound desperate.
ARM,
I appreciate your falsehoods.
If nobody else does, please accept my salutations.
My summary of these comments:
I'm not a troll you're a troll.
My conspiracy theories are right and yours are wrong, look at my whiteboard at all the connections.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा