I was listening to the impeachment hearings live broadcast today to get an update about the kind of defense Republicans are running. At various times, they've floated different way to defend Trump, including Nick Mulvaney's, "It's not a crime, we do it all the time" and Laura Ingraham's, "Attempted crimes aren't crimes." But Republicans' go-to game plan remains, "This is all a fantasy on the part of Democrats." On November 13 (a very long time ago, as it predates the public impeachment testimony), Republican Congressman Mark Meadows tweeted:
4 inconvenient facts for the Democrat impeachment fantasy:
- Call transcript shows zero link between aid and political investigations
- Aid was released WITHOUT any new investigations
- Ukraine didn’t know aid was withheld during the call
- Trump/Zelensky both say: zero pressure
There was plenty of publicly available information to contradict the above tweet eight days ago, and more has come out since then. But this Republican line of defense endures. Broken down point by point, these specious lines of reasoning all function the same way: they only work if one takes a single fact, discusses that fact out of context, and ignores every related, contradictory fact. Let me show you what I mean.
Myth: Call transcript shows zero link between aid and political investigations
Fact: While it's true that Trump and President Zelensky didn't discuss the withheld aid package on the phone call that prompted the whistleblower complaint that lead to the impeachment investigation, there was a direct quid pro quo: Zelensky inquired about purchasing military aid, and Trump's response was, "I would like you to do us a favor though" in the from of politically-motivated investigations. Regarding the congressional aid package however, Ukraine was informed by E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland that there was little chance the aid would be forthcoming until they made a public statement committing to opening the investigations. Sondland has testified that while the tie between the release of the aid and the investigations was a presumption on his part, there was a quid pro quo from the White House communicated to him tying other calls and meetings with President Trump sought by Ukraine to the public announcement of those same investigations.
Myth: Aid was released WITHOUT any new investigations
Fact: The congressional aid package was released, not coincidentally when the whistleblower complaint was about to go public. The Ukrainians had indeed decided to announce the investigations based on the pressure they were facing from Trump. President Zelensky had planned to go public with the investigations live on CNN on September 13, but called off the announcement due to the release of aid.
Not a myth, but a misleading fact: Ukraine didn’t know aid was withheld during the call
Fact: They knew it a few days later.
Not a myth, but a misleading fact: Trump/Zelensky both say: zero pressure
Fact: In the first post in this series, I discussed the documentation that President Zelensky and his team felt enormously pressured by the conflict between their need for promised American support and Trump's demands for poltically-motivated investigations; this despite Zelensky had said, "No one pushed me" while sitting next to President Trump.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Sunday, November 17, 2019
A Few Links to Dispel Conservative Myths: The Impeachment of Trump, Part Two: The Conspiracy Theories (Look, No One Wants Nude Pictures of Trump)
So if Democrats are trying to impeach the President based on a narrative of certain events, his defenders obviously need an alternate narrative. A problem for those defenders: the case against Trump's creation of a shadow foreign policy that included withholding aid to Ukraine until that country announced investigations damaging to Trump's political opponents is rock solid. So much so that Republicans are having to resort to far out conspiracy theories to try and clear the President of wrongdoing (or at least create a lot of distractions from that wrongdoing).
And who better than to repeat all the craziness Republicans have been circulating than California Congressman David Nunes, who, at the impeachment hearings this week used his time to air, (from Will Sommer of The Daily Beast, "conspiracy theories that are little-known outside of Fox News and the right-wing media ecosystem, and were widely divergent from what witnesses Ambassador William Taylor and State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent were at the hearing to discuss."
From the Republican point of view, Nunes is the perfect guy to spread their cuckoo-bananas nonsense, as he has a lot of experience in the craft. Earlier this year, during the Mueller Special Counsel investigation, Nunes offered up far out (and debunked) theories regarding a "deep state" conspiracy between Democrats, rogue US government officials and Russia to discredit Trump.
As sometimes happens with current events, the article I intended to write today has already been written by someone else. In this case, the debunking of the conspiracy theories Republicans are using to prop up Trump has been covered very well by Grace Panetta of Business Insider in an article titled, Congressional Republicans are repeating many baseless conspiracy theories in Trump's impeachment inquiry. Here's why they're all bogus.
From the article:
Here's a breakdown of the conspiracy theories many Republicans are pushing and why they don't hold up:
Hunter Biden committed corrupt activity in Ukraine, and his father tried to cover for him
The entire impeachment inquiry centers around Trump and the GOP's discredited claim that in his capacity as vice president, Biden tried to help his son by calling for the firing of Viktor Shokin, a prosecutor they say was investigating Burisma.
Despite Trump and Giuliani's allegations, both US and Ukrainian government officials have confirmed there's no evidence that the Bidens did anything improper.
(Note from Joe: Read the article if you'd like to read a lot more about the complete lack of any reason for further investigation of Hunter Biden.)
---
Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Democratic party
On the July 25 call, Trump also referenced a discredited conspiracy — also heavily pushed by Giuliani — that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and that Ukraine was somehow in possession of a DNC server.
"I would like you to do us a favor though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people ... The server, they say Ukraine has it," Trump said on the call.
The US intelligence community has conclusively established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to undermine Hillary Clinton by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.
In the call, Trump was referencing the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which the DNC retained to help them respond to Russia's breach of its servers during the 2016 election.
"The server" refers to an unfounded conspiracy theory that the DNC hid an incriminating server from the FBI while the bureau was investigating Russia's hack, and that the server contains information about who was really responsible for the breach.
In reality, there is no single, physical DNC server, and there is no evidence that Ukraine's government "hid" it from investigators or was in any way involved in the 2016 US presidential election.
CrowdStrike's CEO George Kurtz told CNBC that Trump's reference to CrowdStrike in the Zelensky call was "unintelligible, to be honest."
(Note from Joe: The idea that Ukraine, rather than Russia, interfered in the 2016 US election is supposed to bolster the idea that Trump had legitimate reason to call for "investigations" in the Ukraine, as if he was interested in more than stirring up doubt against Joe and Hunter Biden.)
---
A DNC operative named Alexandra Chalupa conspired with Ukraine to spread dirt on Trump
As part of the conspiracy that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, some have also claimed that a DNC operative named Alexandra Chalupa coordinated with the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on Trump.
In reality, Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American Democratic political consultant and operative, ran a minority engagement program for the DNC in 2016 and communicated with Ukrainian officials about Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who served as an advisor and lobbyist on behalf of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.
There is no evidence Chalupa conspired with Ukraine to conduct any kind of opposition research with regard to Trump. Manafort resigned from the Trump campaign in August of 2016, and is currently serving a seven-and-a-half year federal prison sentence for financial fraud, failing to register as a foreign agent, and witness tampering.
---
Democrats tried to collaborate with Ukraine to obtain nude pictures of Trump
The Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, twice claimed that Democrats collaborated with "people they thought were Ukrainians" to get nude photos of Trump. Nunes made these statements in the September 26 public testimony of the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, and in the November 15 testimony of Marie Yovanovitch, former US ambassador to Ukraine.
In 2018, The Atlantic reported that two Russian pranksters posing as members of Ukraine's parliament prank-called House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff claiming to have "pictures of naked Trump" from a purported encounter Trump had with a famous Russian woman.
While Schiff said on the call that the information was "helpful," his staff told The Atlantic in a statement that they had alerted law enforcement before and after the call that it was "probably bogus."
And who better than to repeat all the craziness Republicans have been circulating than California Congressman David Nunes, who, at the impeachment hearings this week used his time to air, (from Will Sommer of The Daily Beast, "conspiracy theories that are little-known outside of Fox News and the right-wing media ecosystem, and were widely divergent from what witnesses Ambassador William Taylor and State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent were at the hearing to discuss."
From the Republican point of view, Nunes is the perfect guy to spread their cuckoo-bananas nonsense, as he has a lot of experience in the craft. Earlier this year, during the Mueller Special Counsel investigation, Nunes offered up far out (and debunked) theories regarding a "deep state" conspiracy between Democrats, rogue US government officials and Russia to discredit Trump.
As sometimes happens with current events, the article I intended to write today has already been written by someone else. In this case, the debunking of the conspiracy theories Republicans are using to prop up Trump has been covered very well by Grace Panetta of Business Insider in an article titled, Congressional Republicans are repeating many baseless conspiracy theories in Trump's impeachment inquiry. Here's why they're all bogus.
From the article:
Here's a breakdown of the conspiracy theories many Republicans are pushing and why they don't hold up:
Hunter Biden committed corrupt activity in Ukraine, and his father tried to cover for him
The entire impeachment inquiry centers around Trump and the GOP's discredited claim that in his capacity as vice president, Biden tried to help his son by calling for the firing of Viktor Shokin, a prosecutor they say was investigating Burisma.
Despite Trump and Giuliani's allegations, both US and Ukrainian government officials have confirmed there's no evidence that the Bidens did anything improper.
(Note from Joe: Read the article if you'd like to read a lot more about the complete lack of any reason for further investigation of Hunter Biden.)
---
Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Democratic party
On the July 25 call, Trump also referenced a discredited conspiracy — also heavily pushed by Giuliani — that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and that Ukraine was somehow in possession of a DNC server.
"I would like you to do us a favor though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people ... The server, they say Ukraine has it," Trump said on the call.
The US intelligence community has conclusively established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to undermine Hillary Clinton by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.
In the call, Trump was referencing the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which the DNC retained to help them respond to Russia's breach of its servers during the 2016 election.
"The server" refers to an unfounded conspiracy theory that the DNC hid an incriminating server from the FBI while the bureau was investigating Russia's hack, and that the server contains information about who was really responsible for the breach.
In reality, there is no single, physical DNC server, and there is no evidence that Ukraine's government "hid" it from investigators or was in any way involved in the 2016 US presidential election.
CrowdStrike's CEO George Kurtz told CNBC that Trump's reference to CrowdStrike in the Zelensky call was "unintelligible, to be honest."
---
A DNC operative named Alexandra Chalupa conspired with Ukraine to spread dirt on Trump
As part of the conspiracy that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, some have also claimed that a DNC operative named Alexandra Chalupa coordinated with the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on Trump.
In reality, Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American Democratic political consultant and operative, ran a minority engagement program for the DNC in 2016 and communicated with Ukrainian officials about Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who served as an advisor and lobbyist on behalf of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.
There is no evidence Chalupa conspired with Ukraine to conduct any kind of opposition research with regard to Trump. Manafort resigned from the Trump campaign in August of 2016, and is currently serving a seven-and-a-half year federal prison sentence for financial fraud, failing to register as a foreign agent, and witness tampering.
---
Democrats tried to collaborate with Ukraine to obtain nude pictures of Trump
The Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, twice claimed that Democrats collaborated with "people they thought were Ukrainians" to get nude photos of Trump. Nunes made these statements in the September 26 public testimony of the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, and in the November 15 testimony of Marie Yovanovitch, former US ambassador to Ukraine.
In 2018, The Atlantic reported that two Russian pranksters posing as members of Ukraine's parliament prank-called House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff claiming to have "pictures of naked Trump" from a purported encounter Trump had with a famous Russian woman.
While Schiff said on the call that the information was "helpful," his staff told The Atlantic in a statement that they had alerted law enforcement before and after the call that it was "probably bogus."
---
Future articles in this series will cover subjects including Trump's mischaracterizations of his infamous call with President Zelensky, and the lingering possibility that impeachment of Trump will include obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation. Of course with public hearings just getting rolling, who know what kind of crazy nonsense Republicans will be throwing out there? I'll be covering that too.
Saturday, November 16, 2019
A Few Links to Dispel Conservative Myths: The Impeachment of Trump, Part One: Quid Pro Quo
Between September of 2014 and September of 2017, I wrote a fourteen-part series on the myths and lies Republicans and conservatives tell about health care, climate change and many other subjects. Donald Trump killed the series. How can I possibly fact check a President who more made more than 13,000 false and misleading statements during his first 1,000 days in office?
But now that Trump is facing impeachment, I can't help but bring the subject of conservative lies out of retirement, given the furious way Republicans are using every kind of falsehood and misleading argument in a desperate attempt to keep Trump in office. Before we dive in, a quick review of where we are: In September, Democrats commenced hearings that might have lead to the impeachment of President Trump when they subpoenaed former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski in connection with the Special Counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials, conducted by special prosecutor Robert Mueller from May 2017 to March 2019. Long story short, Trump's actions in the Mueller investigation left him open to charges of obstruction of justice. There's also been talk of impeachment of Trump over the Stormy Daniels payoff, and his violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
Suddenly, a bombshell: a whistleblower's complaint was given to Congress on September 25, 2019 revealing a phone call between Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky implying that U.S. military aid approved by Congress to Ukraine was to be withheld until Zelensky gave in to demands that the leaders of Ukraine publicly announce investigations of former U.S. vice president and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that six committees of the House of Representatives would undertake a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Those committees began taking depositions immediately, and public hearings started this week.
Republicans in response have been throwing out excuse they can think of to derail the impeachment of Trump, including, "Trump is too dumb to commit this crime." That one is a bit too subjective for this blog post; I'll be sticking to the Republican excuses that are objectively false. And away we go.
Myth: The whistleblower complaint is not legitimate, as it is "hearsay".
Fact: In the first days in the formal impeachment inquiry, Republicans complained a lot that the Democrats shouldn't even be able to hold hearings, or demonstrate that Trump might have committed a crime on the Trump-Zelensky call, as the government official who submitted the complaint didn't actually hear the call. From Sarah Lustbader of the Washington Post, "The first problem with the Republicans’ hearsay defense is that the White House’s rough transcript confirmed much of what the whistleblower was told by several officials. But even if that memo had not been released, the complaints about hearsay would be missing the mark. Hearsay does not mean "unreliable information," and it can play an important and legitimate part in many kinds of investigations and legal proceedings. So while Trump and his allies are correct that the whistleblower report could not, by itself, be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial, that’s entirely beside the point." And of course, the "hearsay defense" has been rendered moot by the fact that we have a transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call with a smoking gun in the form of the now infamous "prid pro quo". Speaking of which...
Myth: There was "no quid pro quo" - there exists no evidence that the reason why Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine was because he was pressuring officials there to open investigations of Joe and Hunter Biden.
Fact:
1. The quid pro quo is in the call transcript that was the basis for the whistleblower complaint:
Zelensky: "We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States for defense purposes."
Trump: "I would like you to do us a favor though"
Now the above exchange doesn't prove that Trump withheld the aid Congress approved in return for an investigation of the Bidens. However,
2. White House Chief of Staff Mike Mulvaney (bizarrely) flat-out admitted the quid pro quo. From CNN: "White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney made a stunning admission Thursday by confirming that President Donald Trump froze nearly $400 million in US security aid to Ukraine in part to pressure that country into investigating Democrats."
"That's why we held up the money," Mulvaney said"... "Get over it."... "We do that all the time with foreign policy."
Now Mulvaney quickly tried to walk back that admission, but the quid pro quo had been proven in myriad ways, including:
3. Rudy Giuliani, the President's personal lawyer, told U.S. special envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker to push Ukraine's newly elected president to publicly promise he would order an investigation into Hunter Biden.
4. Based on a phone conversation with Trump, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, told a Ukrainian official that security assistance to the country would be likely to resume only if the authorities in Kyiv opened the Biden investigations.
Other U.S. government officials have confirmed these same facts.
Myth: According to the White House, the investigation is not legitimate because the full House had not voted to authorize it.
Fact: No full vote is needed to authorize an investigation and the House is not obligated to let Trump’s lawyers participate. This argument was rendered moot by the House's full authorization vote, passed on Halloween no less.
Myth: The Democrats' early closed-door impeachments hearings were an unfair, dangerous and secretive process.
Fact: The House rules being used by Chairman Adam Schiff have been in place since 2015 when Republicans were in the majority. "The House rules permit committee chairs to hold closed hearings on matters of national security or intelligence. Diplomatic matters implicate both national security and intelligence. The rules also permit standing committees – as opposed to the full House – to issue subpoenas. As well, they permit interviews of witnesses in secret in order to determine if they are credible enough to present in public." - Fox News political commentator and legal analyst Andrew Napolitano
Myth: Speaker Pelosi has suggested that the quid pro quo may result in an impeachment charge of bribery against the President, but, "Attempted bribery isn't in the Constitution." - Laura Ingrahan of Fox News
Fact: Some Republicans are trying to suggest that the quid pro quo, if it did exist, isn't a criminal act or an impeachable offense. However, (from John Nichols of The Nation): "Apart from the problem of a "defense" that suggests the president was trying to do wrong but didn’t fully achieve his goal, this argument splits the wrong hair. Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute reminds us: "Attempts to bribe exist at common law and under the Model Penal Code, and often, the punishment for attempted bribery and completed bribery are identical." That’s useful. But even more useful is an understanding of the fact that impeachment is not a legal intervention that requires evidence of a specific criminal act or statutory violation, as President Trump and so many of Republican allies on the House Intelligence Committee so desperately want the American people and their elected officials to imagine."
Myth: The aid was eventually released, and President Zelensky has said he did not feel pressured to open the Biden investigations. So if there's no victim, there's no crime. Republican Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota: "Zelensky doesn’t feel like he was pressured. I don’t know who the rest of the world is to feel victimized on his behalf."
Fact: The U.S. authorized the aid to the Ukraine as a matter of national security. By delaying the aid package, the victims were the American people. According to Laura Cooper, a Defense Department official, whose deposition was released Monday in the House impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump: "My sense is that all of the senior leaders of the U.S. national security departments and agencies were all unified in their — in their view that this assistance was essential," she said. "And they were trying to find ways to engage the President on this."
Furthermore, while Zelensky did state, while sitting next to President Trump, that he was not pressured by Trump to open the Biden investigations, in private he was very concerned about the quid pro quo. From the Chicago Tribune: "Volodymyr Zelenskiy gathered a small group of advisers on May 7 in Kyiv for a meeting that was supposed to be about his nation's energy needs. Instead, the group spent most of the three-hour discussion talking about how to navigate the insistence from Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, for a probe and how to avoid becoming entangled in the American elections, according to three people familiar with the details of the meeting."
"The three people's recollections differ on whether Zelenskiy specifically cited that first call with Trump as the source of his unease. But their accounts all show the Ukrainian president-elect was wary of Trump's push for an investigation into the former vice president and his son Hunter's business dealings."
Much more to come as we enter the second public week of impeachment hearings.
But now that Trump is facing impeachment, I can't help but bring the subject of conservative lies out of retirement, given the furious way Republicans are using every kind of falsehood and misleading argument in a desperate attempt to keep Trump in office. Before we dive in, a quick review of where we are: In September, Democrats commenced hearings that might have lead to the impeachment of President Trump when they subpoenaed former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski in connection with the Special Counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials, conducted by special prosecutor Robert Mueller from May 2017 to March 2019. Long story short, Trump's actions in the Mueller investigation left him open to charges of obstruction of justice. There's also been talk of impeachment of Trump over the Stormy Daniels payoff, and his violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
Suddenly, a bombshell: a whistleblower's complaint was given to Congress on September 25, 2019 revealing a phone call between Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky implying that U.S. military aid approved by Congress to Ukraine was to be withheld until Zelensky gave in to demands that the leaders of Ukraine publicly announce investigations of former U.S. vice president and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that six committees of the House of Representatives would undertake a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Those committees began taking depositions immediately, and public hearings started this week.
Republicans in response have been throwing out excuse they can think of to derail the impeachment of Trump, including, "Trump is too dumb to commit this crime." That one is a bit too subjective for this blog post; I'll be sticking to the Republican excuses that are objectively false. And away we go.
Myth: The whistleblower complaint is not legitimate, as it is "hearsay".
Fact: In the first days in the formal impeachment inquiry, Republicans complained a lot that the Democrats shouldn't even be able to hold hearings, or demonstrate that Trump might have committed a crime on the Trump-Zelensky call, as the government official who submitted the complaint didn't actually hear the call. From Sarah Lustbader of the Washington Post, "The first problem with the Republicans’ hearsay defense is that the White House’s rough transcript confirmed much of what the whistleblower was told by several officials. But even if that memo had not been released, the complaints about hearsay would be missing the mark. Hearsay does not mean "unreliable information," and it can play an important and legitimate part in many kinds of investigations and legal proceedings. So while Trump and his allies are correct that the whistleblower report could not, by itself, be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial, that’s entirely beside the point." And of course, the "hearsay defense" has been rendered moot by the fact that we have a transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call with a smoking gun in the form of the now infamous "prid pro quo". Speaking of which...
Myth: There was "no quid pro quo" - there exists no evidence that the reason why Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine was because he was pressuring officials there to open investigations of Joe and Hunter Biden.
Fact:
1. The quid pro quo is in the call transcript that was the basis for the whistleblower complaint:
Zelensky: "We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States for defense purposes."
Trump: "I would like you to do us a favor though"
Now the above exchange doesn't prove that Trump withheld the aid Congress approved in return for an investigation of the Bidens. However,
2. White House Chief of Staff Mike Mulvaney (bizarrely) flat-out admitted the quid pro quo. From CNN: "White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney made a stunning admission Thursday by confirming that President Donald Trump froze nearly $400 million in US security aid to Ukraine in part to pressure that country into investigating Democrats."
"That's why we held up the money," Mulvaney said"... "Get over it."... "We do that all the time with foreign policy."
Now Mulvaney quickly tried to walk back that admission, but the quid pro quo had been proven in myriad ways, including:
3. Rudy Giuliani, the President's personal lawyer, told U.S. special envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker to push Ukraine's newly elected president to publicly promise he would order an investigation into Hunter Biden.
4. Based on a phone conversation with Trump, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, told a Ukrainian official that security assistance to the country would be likely to resume only if the authorities in Kyiv opened the Biden investigations.
Other U.S. government officials have confirmed these same facts.
Myth: According to the White House, the investigation is not legitimate because the full House had not voted to authorize it.
Fact: No full vote is needed to authorize an investigation and the House is not obligated to let Trump’s lawyers participate. This argument was rendered moot by the House's full authorization vote, passed on Halloween no less.
Myth: The Democrats' early closed-door impeachments hearings were an unfair, dangerous and secretive process.
Fact: The House rules being used by Chairman Adam Schiff have been in place since 2015 when Republicans were in the majority. "The House rules permit committee chairs to hold closed hearings on matters of national security or intelligence. Diplomatic matters implicate both national security and intelligence. The rules also permit standing committees – as opposed to the full House – to issue subpoenas. As well, they permit interviews of witnesses in secret in order to determine if they are credible enough to present in public." - Fox News political commentator and legal analyst Andrew Napolitano
Myth: Speaker Pelosi has suggested that the quid pro quo may result in an impeachment charge of bribery against the President, but, "Attempted bribery isn't in the Constitution." - Laura Ingrahan of Fox News
Fact: Some Republicans are trying to suggest that the quid pro quo, if it did exist, isn't a criminal act or an impeachable offense. However, (from John Nichols of The Nation): "Apart from the problem of a "defense" that suggests the president was trying to do wrong but didn’t fully achieve his goal, this argument splits the wrong hair. Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute reminds us: "Attempts to bribe exist at common law and under the Model Penal Code, and often, the punishment for attempted bribery and completed bribery are identical." That’s useful. But even more useful is an understanding of the fact that impeachment is not a legal intervention that requires evidence of a specific criminal act or statutory violation, as President Trump and so many of Republican allies on the House Intelligence Committee so desperately want the American people and their elected officials to imagine."
Myth: The aid was eventually released, and President Zelensky has said he did not feel pressured to open the Biden investigations. So if there's no victim, there's no crime. Republican Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota: "Zelensky doesn’t feel like he was pressured. I don’t know who the rest of the world is to feel victimized on his behalf."
Fact: The U.S. authorized the aid to the Ukraine as a matter of national security. By delaying the aid package, the victims were the American people. According to Laura Cooper, a Defense Department official, whose deposition was released Monday in the House impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump: "My sense is that all of the senior leaders of the U.S. national security departments and agencies were all unified in their — in their view that this assistance was essential," she said. "And they were trying to find ways to engage the President on this."
Furthermore, while Zelensky did state, while sitting next to President Trump, that he was not pressured by Trump to open the Biden investigations, in private he was very concerned about the quid pro quo. From the Chicago Tribune: "Volodymyr Zelenskiy gathered a small group of advisers on May 7 in Kyiv for a meeting that was supposed to be about his nation's energy needs. Instead, the group spent most of the three-hour discussion talking about how to navigate the insistence from Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, for a probe and how to avoid becoming entangled in the American elections, according to three people familiar with the details of the meeting."
"The three people's recollections differ on whether Zelenskiy specifically cited that first call with Trump as the source of his unease. But their accounts all show the Ukrainian president-elect was wary of Trump's push for an investigation into the former vice president and his son Hunter's business dealings."
Much more to come as we enter the second public week of impeachment hearings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)