Tuesday, November 26, 2019

The great con

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-thinks-his-supporters-are-the-most-gullible-people-on-earth-are-they-really/2019/03/07/1e79a4c4-41

11/24/19  Testimony by State Department and the US ambassador Bill Taylor to Ukraine  November 13 confirmed  Trump used withholding military aid as a threat to force the Ukraine president to go before microphones and announce he would re-open investigations into the Bidens and find  evidence that Ukraine, not Russia, was to blame  for the 2016 US presidential election interference. In fact. Amb. Sondland, one of the schemers, testified that Trump did not require Zelensky to go through with the investigation, just to announce it. That was the purpose. 

 The dead-end investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails and Ben Ghazi hurt her badly. It should work against Biden, too...right?  That latter issue, that Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the DNC server is a conspiracy theory that contradicts the findings of Mueller,'s investigation,  all of the US intelligence services, and a bi-partisan Senate committee findings, not to mention they found it was a propaganda initiative of Russian intelligence agencies. NSC expert on Russia matters, Fiona Hill, calls the claim that Ukraine, not Russia,(Cloudstrike) invented and advanced by Russia." It is fiction", she testified in open hearings.. 
https://www.axios.com/impeachment-hearing-fiona-hill-trump-ukraine-testimony-49fbce41-bf1c-4b02-964c-701196d30d5c.html

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sondland-trump-only-wanted-ukraine-to-announce-investigation-into-biden-not-a-real-inquiry

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/trump-followers-believe-lies-wall.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-thinks-his-supporters-are-the-most-gullible-people-on-earth-are-they-really/2019/03/07/1e79a4c4-41
 Cloudstrike:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/02/not-enough-pinocchios-trumps-crowdstrike-obsession

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-turn-gaslighting-response-justice-dept-report?cid=sm_fb_maddow&fbclid=IwAR3I509xX3alDX30zcXZ0Ce0LK8diBRYMs6RyvwpNCFpvF6rjFCdchhXi9E
Posted by at No comments:

Impeachment to date in tweet form

Democrat’s case
Trump did it. He tried to cheat in secret to help his 2020 re-election campaign. His own words and first-hand witnesses testified he used Congressionally approved taxpayer money to coerce a desperate ally fighting Russia to help Trump's re-election in 2020. He invited foreign interference in the 2020 elections to help his re-election. Trump was caught in the act and the scheme was aborted..

 Trump claimed he was fighting Ukraine corruption, but only mentioned Bidens. Ambassador Sondland, one of the three Amigos running the scheme, confirmed Trump "did not give a s...t about Ukraine, but cared about "big stuff" meaning investigations into Bidens and: Ukraine, not Russia hacked the DNC.

What did Trump know; when he froze the military aid to Ukraine? Per sworn testimony, the order was given directly to the Office of Budget and Management as early as July 18, a week before July 25 shakedown call with the Ukraine president and the official order was issued the evening of July 25. Because a violation of law was involved, two OMB officials refused to sign off on the freeze, resigned, and were replaced by Trump loyalists.
.
What did Trump know when he released the military aid to Ukraine? Two days before the release of aid,, the Whistleblower complaint was released to Congress and the public, but at the end of August White House attorneys told Trump about the Whistleblower complaint. Zelensky by then had agreed to comply with Trump's favors he asked, to announce publicly the investigations into Bidens and 2016, arranged an interview with CNN, and canceled it with the release of the aid. Ukraine and Amb. Sondland knew aid was dependent on Ukraine's compliance to announce the investigations by the end of August.

 Trump knew and approved the scheme.Trump ordered the suspension of military aid week before July25 telephone call where he listed favors and referred Ukraine president to Guiliani. Guiliani said he was working for Trump. Amb. Sondland reported updates to Trump and said all were in the loop.

 All US intelligence agencies, 125 pages of Mueller report, and Senate bipartisan committee report provide proof Russia, not Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections. Russia intelligence services invented conspiracy theory Ukraine did it. Joe Biden advocated more vigorous prosecution of Ukraine's corruption, not less. Amb. Sondland testifies Trump only wanted Ukraine to announce investigations, not conduct them.

Trump emboldens Russian aggression, giving them a green light to exert control over Ukraine and other countries since they fear little resistance from the US. He does not care an expletive about Ukraine but how they could help his re-election. He promotes and repeats Russian propaganda and trusts Russian sources instead of US intelligence services and bi-partisan Senate committee findings.

We cannot trust Trump to look after ours or the nation's interests because he cares less for our national security than he does for his own political security. Trump lies to the public often. He uses fear of reprisals and tweets to intimidate opposition and claims he is above the law to get his way both in foreign affairs and domestic policy.

 White House refused to respond to subpoenas and obstructs justice by keeping administration officials with first-hand knowledge to produce documents and to testify. Still civil service and military and Amb. Sondland as first-hand witnesses testified.


If GOP Senators acquit him, they are complicit and give present and future presidents the green light to do it, too.

GOP’s case
He did wrong, but not wrong enough to justify impeachment or removal.

 The military was unfrozen; no investigations in Biden or 2016. No harm, no foul.

 President released aid because Ukraine president agreed to investigate Bidens and 2016 and announce it publicly.

 July 25 telephone call: perfect, nothing to see there.

 Guiliani did it, not Trump.

 No one knows if Ukraine didn't hack the DNC server.

Trump only wanted to fight corruption in Ukraine but only mentioned Bidens. GOP 
opens investigation Joe Biden’s connections with Ukraine to verify the theory.

 We need to check first to see if Ukraine interfered in 2016, not Russia. Who knows what happened. No one does.

President is more credible than anyone else in government. Everyone who disagrees with Donald Trump is a Never Trumper and not loyal. Professional diplomats and intelligence officials have hidden agendas or are mistaken. Trump is God’s chosen one.

All evidence presented in hearings was hearsay.
Democrats have been out to impeach Trump since he was elected.
Impeachment is an illegal act; it is a coup….so
Members of the executive branch should not obey or comply with Congressional subpoenas.
The executive branch has the power to defy all Congressional subpoenas. Executive branch has absolute immunity.
All excutive branch testifiers can claim executive privilege.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, November 21, 2019

What were the "bombshells" on the impeachment inquiry open hearings"i

Update 12/3/19
House Intelligence Committee report to House Judiciary Committee 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/read-full-text-trump-ukraine-impeachment-inquiry-report-n1095036?fbclid=IwAR0Ai0u_wVnUX_YDwkpZFF8qd92E7a5S3c_cIlMOkbt35YDedvF9lMx2C7M

 Update: 11/23.19
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/23/20979143/giuliani-lev-parnas-devin-nunes-biden-investigation-impeachment-inquiry
Nunes had been doing work in Ukraine on Bidens.

Update: 11/27/19
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/27/trump-knew-about-whistleblower-complaint-before-ukraine-aid-released.html

________________________________________________________________________________



11/24/19  Testimony by State Department and the US ambassador Bill Taylor to Ukraine  November 13 confirmed  Trump used withholding military aid as a threat to force the Ukraine president to go before microphones and announce he would re-open investigations into the Bidens and find  evidence that Ukraine, not Russia, was to blame  for the 2016 US presidential election interference. In fact. Amb. Sondland, one of the schemers, testified that Trump did not require Zelensky to go through with the investigation, just to announce it. That was the purpose. The dead end investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails and Ben Ghazi hurt her badly. It should work against Biden, too...right?  That latter issue, that Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the DNC server is a conspiracy theory that contradicts the findings of Mueller,'s investigation,  all of the US intelligence services, and a bi-partisan Senate committee findings, not to mention they found it was a propaganda initiative of Russian intelligence services. . NSC expert on Russia matters, Fiona Hill, calls the claim that Ukraine, not Russia,(Cloudstrike) invented and advanced by Russia." It is fiction", she testified in open hearings.. 
https://www.axios.com/impeachment-hearing-fiona-hill-trump-ukraine-testimony-49fbce41-bf1c-4b02-964c-701196d30d5c.html

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sondland-trump-only-wanted-ukraine-to-announce-investigation-into-biden-not-a-real-inquiry

"The US uses withholding favors and aid often to get foreign governments to agree to US foreign objectives; Mulvaney: just get over it"
Numerous testifiers in both the deposition and public testimony..in fact, all, testified that Trump had never made fighting corruption in general in Ukraine as a mention in regard to the "quid pro quo" as being a legitimate use of his powers.  What all reported was that only corruption mentioned had to do with Bidens and Burisma.  As Ambassador Sondland reported after an overheard conversation with Trump while on his unsecured cell phone in a Kyiv restaurant, and verified by at least two first-hand witnesses and to some extent by Sondland himself, was that the President did not give a s....t about Ukraine; it was the big stuff.  Bidens".  Laura Cooper of the Pentagon testified that the stipulations placed on the release of the military aid to Ukraine, including acting on corruption, had been satisfied as of May and the aid could have been released after going through some administrative hoops could have been released in mid-June. July 18 the President via Mulvaney froze the disbursement with no reason given.  There were indeed inquiries to her staff around mid-July from Ukraine embassy wondering where their money for Javelins was.  They were aware of the freeze. It was not until later in summer that the weapon's freeze was connected to the pressure on Zelensky in addition to the Oval Office meeting and was verified by Sondland by August 31.


 Taylor was the successor to Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch who Trump had removed in May. Ambassador Yovanovitch testified November 15 she had known Rudy Guiliani had been active in Ukraine seeking her removal.  Yovanovitch's testimony revealed she was recalled and smeared for her efforts to rein in corruption in Ukraine that targeted a corrupt prosecutor who was a pal of Rudy Guiliani's circle of Ukraine contacts.
On November 21, in open hearings in the House, Will Hurd, retiring GOP representative from Texas, presented what will be the best argument the GOP Senators can use to vote against the conviction of Trump. After hearing the devastating evidence that indeed there was a "quid pro quo" , even verified by Amb. Gordon Sondland, one of the participants in the scheme, first hand, it does not rise to a reason to remove Trump. This is a judgment call. The Senators need to ask: why not? What are the rules going forward? Will this mean the standards set for future presidents that it is ok to ask foreigners to intervene in our own elections, in spite of laws forbidding that, and is it ok for future presidents to use taxpayer and Congressionally appropriated money for their own personal political benefit in order to pressure foreign leaders to help his re-election. Where do we draw the line on acceptable presidential behavior.


Zelensky had been reluctant to interfere in US domestic politics, fearing he would jeopardize bi-partisan support in the US Congress. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland in Wednesday, November 20 open hearing confirmed the quid pro quo, using exactly those words: Trump would give the Oval Office meeting Zelensky wanted to have for Trump to confirm continued America’s support of Ukraine, but only if Zelensky would commit to the investigations. Sondland's significance: first had knowledge as a participant in the scheme. This was no hearsay or circumstantial evidence. This was from the participant's horse's mouth. However, Sondland was slow to realize the military aid/Javelin release also was dependent on Zelensky’s agreement to investigate the two conspiracy theories and announce it publicly. He did understand that at the end of August. He was also slow to grasp that every time Burisma investigations re-opening meant Hunter and Joe Biden's activities. Under questioning, Sondland agreed opening the Biden investigation would benefit Trump in 2020. The issue that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 elections, contradicts the findings of Mueller,'s investigation, all of the US intelligence services, and bi-partisan Senate committee findings. Sondland also said all of the president's men, Pence, Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc. were in on the scheme. It was not just Rudy Guiliani going rogue; it was the mainstream of Trump and his closest advisors who were part of it. Laura Cooper, the point person in the Department of Defense, also testified that her staff had received inquiries from the Ukraine embassy on July 25 asking about the money for the javelins, indicating that Ukraine knew about the July 18 freeze on javelin money far earlier than the GOP charged. The
significance is that it shuts holes in the GOP argument that there was no quo there, i.e.how could
Ukraine knows that the release of the military aid was being used as the extortion hammer. They did know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdIIMXibXoc Laura Cooper testimony 11/20

_______________________________________________________________________________
 There was also evidence Guiliani had been trying to get evidence against the Bidens since late 2018, before the election of Zelensky in April 2019. 

 Trump released the aid within 48 hours of the Whistleblower's complaint reaching Congress with public exposure of Trump's July 25 call. In that call in he asked Zelensky for "favors though "in response to Zelensky saying he was ready to buy Javelins, anti-tank missiles, critical to Ukraine's defense against Russian tanks. Trump referred Zelensky to Guiliani for followup.
GOP defense seems to be no harm no foul since Ukraine got the aid, but an attempted crime is subject to prosecution, as well, respond Democrats. The harm done was to throw doubt into Trump's commitment to Ukraine and emboldening Putin's power and attempt to control eastern Europe's former USSR's satellites. The GOP is claiming all evidence has been supplied by second-hand knowledge and hearsay, while Trump has attempted to keep anyone with direct knowledge from testifying. He has failed. First-hand witnesses have emerged , especially the participant in the scheme, Gordon Sondland, and Trump's own words are the best evidence against him. 
Another GOP defense is that Trump may have done wrong, but not wrong enough to warrant impeachment or removal from office. Prior impeachment attempts involved coverup and lying of a break-in to Democratic National Committee (Watergate/Nixon) and Clinton's lying about a sex affair with an intern.  This impeachment process and inquiry hearings concern national security and defense in the face of Russian aggression that could result in future hotter conflicts. If this is not enough to justify impeachment/trial what is or ever will be?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-inquired-about-aid-on-same-day-as-trump-zelensky-call-official-testifies-11574295133
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Why impeach if the Senate will not convict and remove?




As of this date,   it appears all votes on impeachment in the House and Senate trial will be heavily partisan. In history, as this event is studied and written. this history will reflect that the Senate could not reach the 2/3 threshold to convict while the Democrats reached their simple majority needed to impeach.  That this will be a partisan vote is a given. History will note, however, that the evidence and proof supported the President's conviction in spite of the obstruction of the White House and their refusal to comply with subpoenas. If left to stand, this president and future presidents will be able to cite the precedent and know without repercussions they never have to reply to any Congressional oversight subpoena.  The destruction it will do to the balance and separation of powers and the ability to hold a president to be subject to the rule of law or to the constitution.  It is the fundamental first step to the end of democracy and the rule of an autocrat or a dictator who can claim he is above the law and can determine what the law is and who should be punished and prosecuted for opposing him.

Voting against impeachment in this case also invites foreigners to determine our future by participating in our election process and use their propaganda and social media or to hack our election machines to cause the outcome to be in their interest and not our own national interest that we, Americans, determine..  Foreigners who are our adversaries will have an agenda to weaken us and support their national goals,  not ours.

 So far, Trump supporters have not been able to refute the facts of the damning testimony of the impeachment inquiry witnesses and instead have resorted to reviving conspiracy theories. They have falsely claimed there were only hearsay witnesses when there were plenty of first-hand witnesses and the testimony of one of the scheme participants (Amb. Sondland). as well as the president's own words.  While in real life, there could be a court of appeals, but in this process that appeals court will be the voters in the 2020 presidential election.

Impeachment alone will leave Trump with an official black eye in history.  Even an impeachment vote without a conviction by the Senate is a degree of punishment. That asterisk by his name in the history books has meaning, particularly for one who has such a high opinion of himself. and carse history shares that high opinion. Whether this impeachment is because of partisanship and not because of facts and substance will only be a footnote in history books. Of course, partisan politics were at play. The facts and substance will still get top billing. Whether it is enough to deter future similar bad actors is yet to be seen. However, it may have meaning in the next election, too. For that reason, even if the chances of a Senate conviction are remote, impeachment in the House is worth it, setting the precedent that those behave as Trump has done will be called out and exposed to voters.

On November 21, in open hearings in the House, Will Hurd, retiring GOP representative from Texas, presented what will be the best argument the GOP Senators can use to vote against the conviction of Trump. After hearing the devastating evidence that indeed there was a "quid pro quo" , even verified by Amb. Gordon Sondland, one of the participants in the scheme, first hand, it does not rise to a reason to remove Trump. This is a judgment call. The Senators need to ask: why not? What are the rules going forward? Will this mean the standards set for future presidents that it is ok to ask foreigners to intervene in our own elections, in spite of laws forbidding that, and is it ok for future presidents to use taxpayer and Congressionally appropriated money for their own personal political benefit in order to pressure foreign leaders to help his re-election. Where do we draw the line on acceptable presidential behavior?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/21/gop_rep_will_hurd_i_have_not_heard_evidence_proving_the_president_committed_bribery_or_extortion.html

 A step three-question though is convincing voters is that we should not wait for the next election to remove him and that Trump is such a threat to national security and is trampling democracy, we cannot wait another year to get him out of the oval office before the next election. Democrats are making the case that we cannot wait to oust Trump until the 2020 elections because he is using his office for seeking and employing foreign interference to help him with the 2020 elections at the expense of our national security., our national interests. , Has seriously damaged the ability of those in both the intelligence, diplomatic corps to protect our security. and independence as a nation and sent messages to the rest of the world not to trust our past pledges of commitment to their peace, prosperity, and independence, either.

 We impeached a president for having a sexual affair with an intern and another for dirty political tricks and lying about his role in the coverup. This impeachment concerns national security interests and the ability to maintain some of the essential principles of the Constitution that stands between us as a republic and a democracy and a dictatorship of a person instead of a rule of law. If this is not enough reason to impeach, what is?
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, November 18, 2019

Impeachment: Democrats have won a battle; they have not won the war

Democrats have won a battle; they have not won the war.  They may have convinced most Americans Trump did something wrong. Half of Americans still believe it is not enough wrong enough to justify impeachment and/or removal.

The poll:
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/70-americans-trump-actions-tied-ukraine-were-wrong-110154820--abc-news-topstories.html  The poll was conducted Saturday & Sunday, November 16-17.
 POLL originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
"An overwhelming 70% of Americans think President Donald Trump’s request to a foreign leader to investigate his political rival, which sits at the heart of the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry, was wrong, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds."
The poll found a slim majority of Americans, 51%, believe Trump’s actions were both wrong and he should be impeached and removed from office. 
Other poll findings: "In addition to the 51%, "another 19% think that Trump's actions were wrong, but that he should either be impeached by the House but not removed from office or be neither impeached by the House nor convicted by the Senate." The survey also finds that 1 in 4 Americans, 25%, still think that Trump did nothing wrong.
"Still, nearly 1 in 3, 32%, say they made up their minds about impeaching the president before the news broke about Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in which Trump urged his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter."
_______________________________________________________________________
What this poll shows is that Democrats have already won the argument that Trump did do what they say he did and what he did was wrong.  25% still think he did nothing wrong .  What Democrats have failed to do so far is to convince more that it was wrong enough to warrant impeaching and removal.  That opinion is nearly evenly split with 51% in favor. 
What Democrats must do is to make a stronger case to voters that what Trump did was wrong enough to deserve impeachment and removal.  The potential is good since there is still a body that could be convinced.  Any poll that shows 60% or more agreeing on something is as good as you can usually get on any issue.  There will always be about a third who says "no" to any issue.  Democrats need is to change half of the minds who are thinking Trump did wrong, just not wrong enough.
The arguments Democrats can make involve the threat to national security and democracy of Trump's continued presidency. The case is not easy to make, but it is something that matters. The problem is that usually foreign affairs never rise to the top of the voter concern list unless the US is attacked, we get in a hot shooting war early in the event, body bags are sent back to the US to grieving friends and relatives, or the draft is enacted.  Trump's kissing up to Putin or abandoning our allies or withdrawing to let Russia take over positions we once held have not grabbed the imagination of many voters.   Threats in a distant future to national security which involve some obscure country are not frightening enough to alarm voters, either. The case is to be made is if the US does not commit strongly to Ukraine's independence from Russia, the signal sent to Russia is that they can expect little resistance if they take over all of the former Soviet satellites that now lean westward or are a part of NATO. This could trigger a hot war and US participation in it. The possibility seems remote, but it will be less remote if we do nothing now. It is a stitch in time before the hem unravels.  It is in that context the case must be made. Ukraine as a country has been a constant issue in foreign policy since the 2016 campaign. Trump's campaign chair in spring and summer of 2016, Paul Manafort, was a former advisor to a deposed pro-Russian Ukraine president. Russia taking over Crimea in 2014  and invading Ukraine's eastern province and interfering in the 2016 US elections did result in sanctions and some military aid to the pro-west government. Congress appropriated lethal weapons when Trump became president, but Trump used that aid as his hammer to get Ukraine to help him with his re-election. Even then, as one following my blog postings on facebook asked: what does this have to do with me and my life. To say that Ukraine was the first line of defense against some hot war with Russia on the European continent or Trump's foreign policy of turning the world we used to control ...Syria to eastern Europe ..over to Russa,  is hard to imagine.   It is in that context the case must be made.  The symbol of what is in the store could be the picture of Russia occupying a former US base in northern Syria.  We left the battlefield to Russian influence in the middle east they had been seeking, bolstering their allies there, including Iran. Russia means us no good and weakening the US resolve to resist them is an enabling feather in their power-seeking cap. For those who think isolation is the answer to America's peace and prosperity, ask themselves: How did that work out in the 1930s?
While foreign crises can happen quickly, the other argument for impeachment is "precedent" in a civics or political science context. Civics is boring until the time democracy is lost and usually this is a slowly creeping cancer that the victims only realize it infects them when it is too late to reverse it. Peace and prosperity eventually follow that decline in democratic governance. What if Trump gets away with giving the rule of law his finger, or defying Congressional appropriations, or shows tendencies and strategies used by autocrats and dictators to control citizens' minds, hearts, and actions?  Does it mean some future wannabe dictator in America could get away with it, too?  It could if enough voters do not care or do not try to nip this one in the bud.  Our democracy is fragile and only survives if most of us are willing to protect it and it exists only with the consent of the governed. Those who are advocating civil war if their dear leader is held to account are the most dangerous threat to democracy that exists. Democracy provides a peaceful way for regime change and it requires respect from even those who are a minority who lose in the ballot box or in the polls of public opinion. Fomenting violent revolution by even using such threatening words is a sign we should take as evidence that there is a slowly creeping demise of democracy underway. That is the same pattern we saw in the rise of fascists in the 1930s and Erdogan in Turkey..All rose by manipulating step by step the tools of democracy and their country's laws. to grab power with the consent of a critical mass of their own people. When democracy, freedom of speech, press, and other rights protected in our constitution are destroyed, what is left is indeed for the oppressed and muzzled to take to the streets in a futile effort in the face of the overwhelming power of the dictator. That is what happens when democracy dies.

_________________________________________________________________________
This segment has been moved to its own posting: Why impeachment if the senate does not convict. 11/19/19

Impeachment alone will leave Trump with an official black eye in history.  Even an impeachment vote without a conviction by the Senate is a degree of punishment. That asterisk by his name in the history books has meaning, particularly for one who has such a high opinion of himself. and carse history shares that high opinion. Whether this impeachment is because of partisanship and not because of facts and substance will only be a footnote in history books. Of course, partisan politics were at play. The facts and substance will still get top billing. Whether it is enough to deter future similar bad actors is yet to be seen. However, it may have meaning in the next election, too. For that reason, even if the chances of a Senate conviction are remote, impeachment in the House is worth it, setting the precedent that those behave as Trump has done will be called out and exposed to voters.

A step three-question though is convincing voters is that we should not wait for the next election to remove him and that Trump is such a threat to national security and is trampling democracy, we cannot wait another year to get him out of the oval office before the next election. Democrats are making the case that we cannot wait to oust Trump until the 2020 elections because he is using his office for seeking and employing foreign interference to help him with the 2020 elections at the expense of our national security., our national interests. , Has seriously damaged the ability of those in both the intelligence, diplomatic corps to protect our security. and independence as a nation and sent messages to the rest of the world not to trust our past pledges of commitment to their peace, prosperity, and independence, either.

 What puzzles me are those who do still support Trump and oppose impeachment and/or removal. I hope I am wrong, but I theorize that they are banking on is that what Trump is doing has no impact on their lives and even if Trump is abusing power and using corrupt methods for his own political purposes is fine with them because it serves their purposes, too. What Trump represents and his methods of spreading fear by tweet even if he lies and his transactional modus without concern for ethics, values, and morality can be overlooked because it suits their own beliefs. He has convinced them he cares about their self-interests and he keeps both of them in the national driver seat. The end justifies the means. The impact on the future of democracy is not of their concern. It is some theory, with little impact in their lifetime. This is the values and cultural challenge that those who think otherwise cannot overcome. The best Democrats can do is to make their case to the other 60% of the nation.
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, November 11, 2019

Trump and Ukraine: Why Ukraine matters

A version of this was published in the Winter Park Times  11/21/19
https://winterparktimes.com/opinion/columnists/critical-military-aid-including-javelin-anti-tank-missiles/

update: 11/21/19: One of the favors Donald Trump asked of Ukraine President Zelensky as a condition of receiving military aid and an Oval Office visit was to look into Ukraine's role in the 2016 elections and the rumor that Ukraine had the hacked DNC server. Fiona Hill, the NSC Russian expert, testified November 21, which was a Russian disinformation action and the GOP was spreading it. “[S]ome 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.”

Revised: 11/15/19 and updated 11/17/19 and 11/20/19

If all of Trump's roads lead to Russia because of his foreign policy that supports Putin's goals, many also go through Ukraine. Why does Ukraine matter?  Ukraine is considered extremely important to US national security, too. Trump's actions and words throw doubt into Trump's commitment to Ukraine and emboldens Putin's attempt to control eastern European former Soviet satellites.. Ambassador Bill Taylor, currently the chief envoy to Ukraine, worried aloud in his deposition that he was afraid "Trump might be willing to trade away Ukraine's interests as part of a grand bargain with Russia. "

 On November 21, Fiona Hill, Russia expert on the NSC, says the Cloudstrike conspiracy theory, that Ukraine interfered in US elections in 2016, not Russia was and invention advanced by Russia. It is fiction.
https://www.axios.com/impeachment-hearing-fiona-hill-trump-ukraine-testimony-49fbce41-bf1c-4b02-964c-701196d30d5c.html


 There is a bipartisan consensus in the Senate of those who believe keeping Ukraine's independence from Russia's domination is the first line of defense against the spread of Russia's control of  Europe that would result in an eventual conflict involving the US. Support of Ukraine is America's way of sending a message to Russia to stop its aggression into eastern Europe because the US would react to further incursions as they had reacted in Ukraine, giving that victim country full US support. Trump's attempt to force Ukraine to do him some favors to help his re-election campaign in 2020 in return for the restoration of critical military aid he himself froze benefits Russia by signaling to them he does not care that much about Ukraine's independence. 

 The only one coming out ahead in this scheme of arms for political dirt is Putin. Putin has wanted sanctions lifted on his oligarch friends and Russia itself imposed for interference in US elections and the grabbing of Crimea from Ukraine. It is a critical time for Russia and Ukraine. There is a hot war between Russian forces and Ukraine. 13,000 Ukrainians have died. They are involved in negotiations to end the war in Ukraine's Donbas area with Russia hoping to solidify their control and Ukraine wanting to kick Russia out altogether. Ukraine is now in a weakened bargaining position with evidence of Trump's shaky support of them. 

 Ukraine is no small country.  It is the largest country with boundaries entirely in Europe with a population of 46 million. with natural resources and access to warm water ports.  It is strategically located bordering Russia and some NATO countries and others who are not protected by NATO'a mutual defense treaty.  Mutual defense means if one member country is attacked, all members will respond as they did in 9/11. Membership is a major deterrent to Russian's control spreading throughout Europe.  Nonetheless, one of the first newly elected Donald Trump's expressed policy desires was to declare the mutual defense treaty of NATO obsolete and attempted to defund it, using complaints about Europe's weak financial contribution as an excuse. Fortunately, he failed because members of his own party and Democrats in Congress were in agreement and have supported both a strong NATO and lethal military aid to Ukraine.

In Italics also copied and in its own separate posting 11/21/19 "bombshells" and the posting of the Rebuttal of the Rebuttal .

   Testimony by State Department and the US ambassador Bill Taylor to Ukraine  November 13 confirmed  Trump used withholding military aid as a threat to force the Ukraine president to go before microphones and announce he would re-open investigations into the Bidens and find  evidence that Ukraine, not Russia, was to blame  for the 2016 US presidential election interference. That latter issue is a conspiracy theory that contradicts the findings of Mueller,'s investigation,  all of the US intelligence services, and a bi-partisan Senate committee findings. Taylor was the successor to Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch who Trump had removed in May..Ambassador Yovanovitch testified November 15 she had known Rudy Guiliani had been active in Ukraine seeking her removal.  Yovanovitch's testimony revealed she was recalled and smeared for her efforts to rein in corruption in Ukraine that targeted a corrupt prosecutor who was a pal of Rudy Guiliani's circle of Ukraine contacts.

 Zelensky had been reluctant to interfere in US domestic politics, fearing he would jeopardize bi-partisan support in the US Congress. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland in Wednesday, November 20 open hearing confirmed the quid pro quo, using exactly those words: Trump would give the Oval Office meeting Zelensky wanted to have for Trump to confirm continued America’s support of Ukraine, but only if Zelensky would commit to the investigations. Sondland's significance: first had knowledge as a participant in the scheme. This was no hearsay or circumstantial evidence. This was from the participant's horse's mouth. However, Sondland was slow to realize the military aid/Javelin release also was dependent on Zelensky’s agreement to investigate the two conspiracy theories and announce it publicly. He did understand that at the end of August. He was also slow to grasp that every time Burisma investigations re-opening meant Hunter and Joe Biden's activities. Under questioning, Sondland agreed opening the Biden investigation would benefit Trump in 2020. The issue that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 elections, contradicts the findings of Mueller,'s investigation, all of the US intelligence services, and bi-partisan Senate committee findings. Sondland also said all of the president's men, Pence, Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc. were in on the scheme. It was not just Rudy Guiliani going rogue; it was the mainstream of Trump and his closest advisors who were part of it. Laura Cooper, the point person in the Department of Defense, also testified that her staff had received inquiries from the Ukraine embassy on July 25 asking about the money for the javelins, indicating that Ukraine knew about the July 18 freeze on javelin money far earlier than the GOP charged. The
significance is that it shuts holes in the GOP argument that there was no quo there, i.e.how could
Ukraine knows that the release of the military aid was being used as the extortion hammer. They did know.

 _______________________________________________________________________________
 There was also evidence Guiliani had been trying to get evidence against the Bidens since late 2018, before the election of Zelensky in April 2019. 

  Trump released the aid within 48 hours of the Whistleblower's complaint reaching Congress with public exposure of Trump's July 25 call. In that call in he asked Zelensky for "favors though "in response to Zelensky saying he was ready to buy Javelins, anti-tank missiles, critical to Ukraine's defense against Russian tanks. Trump referred Zelensky to Guiliani for followup.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/70-americans-trump-actions-tied-ukraine-were-wrong-110154820--abc-news-topstories.html 
GOP defense seems to be no harm no foul since Ukraine got the aid, but an attempted crime is subject to prosecution, as well, respond Democrats. The harm done was to throw doubt into Trump's commitment to Ukraine and emboldening Putin's power and attempt to control eastern Europe's former USSR's satellites. The GOP is claiming all evidence has been supplied by second-hand knowledge and hearsay, while Trump has attempted to keep anyone with direct knowledge from testifying. He has failed. First-hand witnesses have emerged and his own words are the best evidence against him. 
Another GOP defense is that Trump may have done wrong, but not wrong enough to warrant impeachment or removal from office. Prior impeachment attempts involved coverup and lying of a break-in to Democratic National Committee (Watergate/Nixon) and Clinton's lying about a sex affair with an intern.  This impeachment process and inquiry hearings concern national security and defense in the face of Russian aggression that could result in future hotter conflicts. If this is not enough to justify impeachment/trial what is or ever will be?

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdIIMXibXoc: Laura Cooper of the Pentagon restifies that Ukraine suspected military aid had been frozen as early as July 25
__________________________________________________________________________________
Nov 17, 2019 Those watching Fareed Zakria's TV broadcast on CNN Sunday, November 17 might have heard how Pres. Zelensky came to plan he would publicly announce he would re-open the Burisma/Biden investigation and look into Ukraine's alleged interference in the 2016 US elections preferring Hillary's candidacy.   The Whistleblower and subsequent release of military aid caused Zelensky's interview with Zakaria to be canceled. In an interview on his program, the State Department chief in charge of Ukraine affairs to 2013, also related that 1.) Joe Biden had been forceful in demanding from a Ukraine prosecutor that he crackdown on corruption which would have hurt Hunter Biden, not have helped him. 2) Joe Biden had been an advocate for those in the Obama White House to supply lethal weapons (Javelin anti-tank missiles) to Ukraine, but that others thought it was not a good idea at the time.  

 Zakaria's interview also explored the Crowdstrike investigations that it was Ukraine that did it in 2016.The expert he interviewed  debunks that. The Ukrainians were somehow the ones who hacked the DNC, not the Russians,. https://twitter.com/CNNnewsroom/status/1196087017790230530
The theory has been embraced by Trump and suits his attempt to get Russia off the hook for what every US intelligence agencies, 125 pages of details in the Mueller Report, and the bipartisan findings of the Senate committee. Zakaria's interviewed expert indicated without evidence yet that this was a disinformation campaign by Russia and by Paul Manafort's associate Konstantin Kilimnik, believed to be a Russian asset, having been trained to do so in Russia. Manafort's client was the pro-Russian ousted former president of Ukraine.


  It took Trump's administration to do that and Trump to undermine his own policy of support of Ukraine by supplying Javelins and withholding them to get political dirt from Ukrainian reopening investigations to help his 2020 re-election.  
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/sep/26/rudy-giulianis-role-ukraines-investigation-joe-bid/

In the Nov 15 hearings, Rep. Jim Jordan tried to make a point and support a conspiracy theory being floated in right-wing media that Ukraine interfered in US politics and the claim that Amb. Yovanovitch did not stop him and in fact, had given him some do not prosecute list (ie the Bidens). In the hearings, she denied it. Some background: Jordan kept mentioning Lutsenko, the then prosecutor who was removed when the new and current President Zelensky assumed office.  Lutsenko had been accused of corruption himself and had not done as he promised to do to crack down on corruption, running afoul of Yovanovitch's anti-corruption initiatives.  Rudy Guiliani and his Ukraine associates drew heavily on Lutsenko in their campaign to oust Amb. Yovanovitch and in the testimony, she said Lutsenko was part of Guiliani's circle of associates..  Nonetheless, Jordan persisted to try to support the conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine that was supporting Hillary Clinton, etc. which is connected to Trump's attempt to get Ukraine to shift the blame on interference in the 2016 election away from Russia to Ukraine. (Trump's reference to Cloudstrike in the July 15 telephone call, one of Trump's "favors" he asked of Zelensky, later conditioned on release of military aid and a White House visit._}Jordan's the questioning was mostly a statement of his conspiracy theory, so much so , Yovanovitch had to ask what was his question.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/434875-top-ukrainian-justice-official-says-us-ambassador-gave-him-a-do-not-prosecute   The origin of this theory was in this March 2019 Hill article.  Both the Ambassador and the State Department vigorously denied it.  The pushback on these Hill allegations in the hearings can be found at https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/470656-yovanovitch-says-solomon-stories-were-used-to-push-false-allegations      These allegations found in the Hill article appear to describe how Lutsenko and Guiliani tried to smear Yovanovitch's reputation and get her removed.   It is also suspected that Guiliani wanted Yovanovitch recalled to make it easier for him to conduct the scheme to find dirt on the Bidens and to help Trump make the case that Russia did not interfere in 2016; Ukraine did. ...as part of his desire to lift punishing sanctions against Russia for the interference. After she was recalled, there was a lag time before her vacancy was filled by Taylor.  In her testimony, Yovanovitch said she is still puzzled why she was recalled, though it was very hurtful to her.   

 Yovanovitch had approved of  Trump's official policy of supplying lethal weapon aid. and ending corruption.  It was Trump's own policy both Guiliani and Trump undermined in making it a tool in their priority goal to get help from Ukraine for 2020. The only corruption Trump ever referenced in pronouncements, tweets, or the July 25 call, was his belief the Bidens had been involved with Burisma, a Ukraine gas company. Priorrior Ukraine investigations found no criminal wrongdoing with Hunter Biden and his father was advocating stronger action against corruption, not weaker action. There is no evidence that Joe Biden either interfered or had anything to do with Hunter's Ukraine business. 
________________________________________________________________________________
 Footnotes and much more:
 We now know that Zelensky caved and had planned to announce Ukraine would re-open the investigation into the conspiracy theories on CNN/ Fareed Zakaria, but cancelled that appearance when the aid was unfrozen.  If the Whistleblower's complaint had never come to light, Trump/Guiliani's scheme would have succeeded and we would never have been the wiser for it.
 Why Donald Trump is constantly licking Putin's boots is a question, the answer which may someday come into the public light.  Until then, we should just accept the fact that Trump loves autocratic Putin's style and nationalist goals and still hopes someday the Moscow tower will be built.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Donald Trump's affinity/bromance/foreign policy to help Russia be great again is best seen in what he does and says.  For years he has advocated policies that weaken American national security.  His campaign manager, Paul Manafort, now in prison for financial crimes he committed before he joined Trump's campaign in the spring of 2016, had been an advisor to a former President of Ukraine who advocated closer ties with Russia.  Manafort's pro-Russian client was unseated in the largely peaceful street uprising and fled to Russia as a refugee.  Those who unhorsed the Russian leaning president wanted to turn westward, to the EU, and not to Russia.



In the Spring of 2016, as Manfort assumed a larger role in the Trump campaign for president, Trump's pronouncement on foreign policy became more focused and was in lockstep with Russia.
It was passed off my many apologists as that his attempts to get approval to build Trump Towers in Moscow were causing his bromance with a strong man he truly admired, President Putin. As we later learned, Russia conducted active measures, hacked DNC emails, sent spies to the US to gather information, and launched an intensive social media campaign, to help Trump's election.  That was the finding of the Mueller Speical Counsel Investigation and the findings of a bipartisan Senate committee, who released their report in early fall this year. No one should have been shocked that he has continued his attempts to undermine European defenses against Russian advancement to reassemble the old Soviet empire. Trump  failed at many of those attempts, from trying to weaken US commitment to NATO, to declare NATO's mutual defense treaty obsolete (if one member is attacked, all will respond), to denigrate his own intelligence services, preferring to listen to Putin's instead, and to try to end economic sanctions against Russia which had been punishment for their aggressions.
In the meantime, Congress had overwhelming bi-partisan support for Ukraine, appropriating military aid critical to Ukraine's ability to stop Russia from turning Ukraine into their satellite. It was this aid package, including the anti-defense missiles, Javelins, that became the object of the Whistleblower complaint.  The Pentagon was told that the administration would irritate Russia if such missiles were given to Ukraine, but no one from any federal department or Congress agreed. In May, Rudy Guiliani began what later was called "the drug deal", an undercover, sneaking around the official diplomatic delegations to Ukraine supporting official policy, to force the newly elected Ukraine president to help Donald Trump get dirt on his domestic political challenger, Joe Biden, via his' son's business activities in Ukraine. First was dangled a meeting in the White House as an inducement, but the Ukraine president did not want to take any side in US politics since his independence from Russia depended on bipartisan support of Congress.  The ante was upped. Per testimony of Department of Defense coordinator, Laura Cooper,  earlier in the summer Ukraine had gotten wind that the javelin delivery was being delayed and it was frozen per Trump's orders one week before a telephone call between the Ukraine president and Trump himself.  In mid-September, the July 25 (quid pro quo) call was exposed by the Whistleblower and two days later, the military aid was unfrozen. Diplomats and Defense Department officials from  May to September slowly realized that there was a side game going on to add the release of the aid to the condition of the Ukrainian president meeting his demands.  

 https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-inquired-about-aid-on-same-day-as-trump-zelensky-call-official-testifies-11574295133

 https://www.axios.com/kurt-volker-closed-door-interview-giuliani-fc9b670b-0b05-4e5c-932c-a39f03fad356.html

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 8, 2019

Impeachment going public: fasten seatbelts for a wild ride

A version of this was published in the Winter Park Times
https://winterparktimes.com/opinion/columnists/fasten-your-seatbelts-its-going-to-be-a-wild-ride/
Beginning this week Republicans get their wish to bring to TV the impeachment inquiry testimony of witnesses who earlier made depositions behind closed doors. Fasten your seatbelts. It is going to be a wild ride. We will now have a chance to look at the witnesses in their faces and hear what they saw and knew. We, too, will have a chance to hear Trump's defenders cross-examine. Failing to knock holes in witnesses' testimony, watch them try to get your attention focused on some side issues not directly relevant to the core events driving the accusations. Expect witnesses to be subject to character assassination and accused of some presumed bias. Per Socrates:” When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.”
For those who still have not made up their minds in advance, this is an opportunity to sit as if you are a juror in a grand jury. While the impeachment process will be voted upon by our elected representatives in the Senate and the House, they too will be following public opinion polls closely and may be swayed by them. A nationwide poll by USC reported Nov 7 by the Los Angeles Times concluded that one-fourth of Americans have not made up their minds; 44% already support impeachment and 30% oppose impeachment.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-11-07/usc-la-times-november-poll

 Transcripts of those depositions and responses to cross-examination questions by the GOP are being or have already been released, but some are 300 pages long. Given a nation so attuned to the visuals and audios of television, and not disposed to delving into wonky weeds of the written word, the impact of the TV hearings will go far to determine national sentiment. The open testimony will be reported and spun by cable media outlets that are slanted ideologically to the left or right. Excerpts and sound bites chosen by the media outlets will be very influential in shaping opinions. Most will probably hear or see broadcasts of the evening news and will not be glued to C-Span or in-depth coverage provided by cable outlets. Social media will be on fire with truths and untruths.

Bet every dime you have that the real-time defense rebuttal will come from the mouths, tweets, and interviews of Donald Trump and his supporters. There will be many attempts as well to shift your attention to someone else’s accused wrongdoing , proven or not. Donald Trump himself is already putting the blame for the scheme to force the Ukraine president to find dirt on the Bidens on his chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, political donor and Trump loyalist Ambassador Sondland, and his personal attorney Rudy Guiliani. Groundwork and action occurred months before and after a July 25 telephone call in which Trump himself told the Ukraine president the favors he wanted and conditioned military aid and a White House visit on Ukraine's president complying. Trump may not have used the term "quid pro quo", but what he said described bribery and extortion. Just asking a foreign leader to help in an election is also a crime under election laws.

Here is where we are now. We are still in the inquiry (investigation) stage. Since no special counsel conducted the investigation in advance and made a report as happened in the Clinton/Nixon cases, this current inquiry is more similar to a grand jury action conducted in secret to determine if the prosecution has a case and what charges are appropriate. Unlike the usual grand jury procedure, open hearings in the House beginning this week will allow cross-examinations and representations by attorneys. Defense witnesses can be called with the approval of a majority of committee members. The Constitution limits reasons (articles) to treason, bribery (extortion falls into this definition), and high crimes/misdemeanors that are not defined. Abuse of power has fit into this latter category of articles in prior impeachment endeavors. A court finding of guilty of a crime is not required. The House’s impeachment vote does not determine guilt or innocence. That trial will happen in the Senate.
What will be the impact on the 2020 election cycle is unknown at this stage, assuming the President is acquitted in a Senate trial as is likely and will not be removed before the 2020 November election. A conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds vote and given the makeup in the Senate, all Democrats and twenty Republicans would be needed to remove him. Impeachment in the House needs a simple majority that Democrats comfortably have. This will be the fourth impeachment process in 250 years, two of which ( Bill Clinton/Andrew Johnson) made it to the Senate for trial, and both ended in acquittal. Nixon resigned before any vote. By November 2020 other issues may be considered more important to voters such as health care, economy, women’s choice, and gun safety.

Note: not allowing attorneys into closed-door depositions is a rule imposed on the House by the GOP during Benghazi hearings. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-rages-about-impeachment-twitter-he-has-republicans-blame-rules-ncna1078921

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/11/trump-impeachment-explainer-069321


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)