On Republicans Who Say They Are “Forced” to Defend Trump
Trump dismissed Vindman as a “Never Trumper,” while some of his allies questioned the patriotism of the Army combat veteran because his family emigrated from the Soviet Union when he was 3.
Trump’s attack on the Purple Heart recipient unnerved Republicans in Congress, with several pushing back, albeit without naming the president. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) called the offensive “misplaced and very unfortunate,” and said he had “full confidence” in Vindman “as an individual and his patriotism.”
The response from Trump’s party created an unusual dynamic in which Republicans were defending a man who was simultaneously accusing the president of undermining national security for his own political purposes. Privately, several Republicans found Vindman’s testimony to be damaging and lamented that once again they were forced to defend the president.
The GOP reaction to Vindman comes as the party faces frontal attacks on two of its major talking points in Trump’s defense. Vindman’s account of the phone call deprives Republicans of the complaint that the witnesses called by Democrats have relied on hearsay when discussing the president’s interactions with Zelensky. And as Democrats moved to vote on a resolution to hold open hearings on impeachment, Republicans faced the prospect of losing their complaint that the inquiry is being conducted in secret.
Read that sentence in bold again: “Privately, several Republicans found Vindman’s testimony to be damaging and lamented that once again they were forced to defend the president.”
“Forced.”
Ain’t nobody forcing you guys to do anything. You could just speak up and say what you actually think, in front of God and everyone.
We’re watching, in real time, the same dynamic that has allowed far worse things to happen in history: people refuse to speak up because they are scared. It sounds easy to speak up, of course — until you realize that everyone you know who has spoken up … is gone. Gone from the party, gone from Washington D.C., gone from political life and everything they worked a lifetime for.
So, yeah. This takes more than a bit of courage.
Still, all you’re really being asked to do is to say what you think is true. If you can’t remotely begin to think about doing that, why are you even there?
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]
“Still, all you’re really being asked to do is to say what you think is true” Patterico.
Yes. In today’s Republican Party, it is too much to ask.
How did we get here? I ask myself that almost daily. I also wonder just how much illegal behavior these people would accept if their leader was truly a genius with great political skills. Scary.
noel (f22371) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:10 am1. If their leader was a genius with great political skills, you’d be completely oblivious to how corrupt he and his cronies are. And so would I, most likely.
Gryph (08c844) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:11 amIf the criminal traitor Trump was a genius with great political skills, the Republicans would still have the House and none of this would be happening.
nk (dbc370) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:14 amAll true. All they have to do is be true to their principles and convictions. If they can’t, …
DCSCA would say “And Putin smiled” but, really, it is the Devil smiling.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:15 amFurthermore, if his … ahem … hands were the size of Obama’s, the Democrats would be too scared to impeach him the way the Republicans were too scared to impeach Obama and none of this would be happening.
nk (dbc370) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:16 amI thought this blog, just a few days ago in fact, disavowed anything from WaPo.
why would I care what you have to say about him or his life or, well, anything? Disgraceful.
Munroe (138863) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:21 amI absolutely believe that the United States is the greatest political achievement in world history and is, in fact, a light to all nations. I also believe that both Trump and Bernie are a threat to the foundations of that success.
noel (f22371) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:22 am7. Too bad the vision our founders had for it died. “America” is a nice idea, but it hasn’t existed in a century.
6. I’m pretty sure the Washington Post would be one of several sources to cover this story.
Gryph (08c844) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:30 am”So, yeah. This takes more than a bit of courage.”
This might mean “Courage” in a Dan Rather context.
Munroe (138863) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:30 amI think Trump’s best defense was articulated by Rich Lowry of the National Review
Yes he used US military aid to extort Ukraine for his political benefit. Yes it was a corrupt act. Ultimately nothing came of it, the aid was released and there was no investigation. This doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment.
If the first part is true, and it seems to be supported, that’s really all Team Trump is left with. I think abusing power for personal or political gain in that way is very much worthy of impeachment, but there’s so much evidence coming out that this really did happen that it’s all their left with. Arguing that he didn’t do it seems to be impossible to support with facts. Arguing that the process is inherently corrupt doesn’t seem to be supported either.
I can see how his political allies are frustrated that neither the facts nor the process support their position and so they’re forced to do it with empty rhetoric.
I’d be frustrated also if success in my career forced me to do and say things I didn’t believe in.
I’d feel bad for them if it wasn’t such a pathetic position on their part.
Time123 (f5cf77) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:38 amTechnology. Look at your phone. Revolutionary. It is your communication device, dictionary, book, encyclopedia, map, social interaction and on and on. I am certain that this same revolution will take place in healthcare in the next few years. Technology can advise patients, diagnose and even treat many diseases, for pennies, allowing doctors and hospitals to focus on the most important tasks that remain.
The same can be said for education. There can be remote learning and interactive experiences second to none when the right technology is applied…. for virtually no cost.
America’s days ahead can be great, alright. As long as we don’t discard what has worked for 200 years.
noel (f22371) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:43 amA large chunk of GOP voters believe that GOP legislators are duty-bound to protect Trump, and that anyone who doesn’t is a “sell-out.”
I see this a lot in online comments: If you criticize Trump, you’re a treacherous, weak sell-out, whereas real men and real Americans and independent thinkers say that Trump is always right and should never be doubted.
Trumpsters live in a bizarro mental world where Trump is the only honest broker in DC, the only one who really cares about them, while all the “politicians” are only out for themselves.
Some of them have an almost religious devotion to Trump. A steady diet of Hannity and Rush and Laura Ingraham certainly has something to do with it, and with GOP legislators’ fearfulness.
Radegunda (68077f) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:44 amThat’s essentially true of both major parties: they circle the wagons when an important member is under attack. The not-so-important ones are used as cannon fodder, but the key members are protected at all costs. And those that don’t want to protect the key members are labelled as traitors to the cause.
I’m not a sociologist, but I’d be willing to bet this is true of tribes of humans everywhere.
Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:54 am”Trumpsters live in a bizarro mental world where Trump is the only honest broker in DC, the only one who really cares about them, while all the “politicians” are only out for themselves.“
Radegunda (68077f) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:44 am
A two year bogus collusion investigation, preceded by multiple bogus FISA warrants and unmaskings, is the model of disinterested altruistic public service.
You guys have blown through whatever good governance capital you had. In fact, you’re well in the red.
Munroe (138863) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:56 amThat’s a lot of hay to make from a simple turn of phrase. There are a lot of strawmen to make though and I guess that sort of straw doesn’t make itself.
frosty (f27e97) — 10/30/2019 @ 9:09 amNo, you need a willing paramilitary, a variation of My Bodyguard and the eses from Napoleon Dynamite, anti-bully bullies who are not Antifa to have the back of these “off the record skeptical GOP”.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/30/2019 @ 9:10 amI’m not sure that’s the right color but maybe that depends on what the bull had for dinner.
frosty (f27e97) — 10/30/2019 @ 9:10 amOther than Sondland’s statements what else is there? What we’ve heard from Vindman doesn’t involve the aid. We might get more once we get to open testimony but aid for dirt hasn’t been established yet.
frosty (f27e97) — 10/30/2019 @ 9:29 amSo we’re back to giving credence to anonymous statements from a paper who’ve abused this in gratuitous ways???
Until we get a named source, we should approach these reportings with bucket full of salts.
The obituary snafu over the weekend ought to dispel the notion that most of the media are only interested in narrative buildings.
whembly (fd57f6) — 10/30/2019 @ 9:47 amThere is more evidence than just Sondland.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:12 amOf course, based on history any WaPo/NYT Anti-Trump story based on Anonymous sources is 100 believable. Their sources are rock solid. Seriously, what is the news here? Does anyone doubt that Lindsey Graham or Ben Sasse or Burr or Liz Cheney or whatever RINO you can think of, is meekly, reluctantly defending Trump in public while telling their DC buddies the opposite?
This sort of game has been going on for a long-time. McCain was the master of it. In 1996, he’d go out and campaign for Dole, give conservative speeches, and then get together with his DC Reporter buddies and laugh at what rubes/boobs the “base” was. In 2000, he publicly supported the SC Confederate state flag, while privately telling this Reporter buddies that it was “raciss”. As for Romney, everyone knew was lying when he said he was “severely conservative” and if “Pierre Delecto” can be believed, was lying all through 2018 about supporting the conservative agenda.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:13 amI don’t have the slightest doubt that if this goes to the Senate for a trial – Mittens, the RINO sisters, and 3-4 other Republicans will vote for conviction – NO MATTER WHAT. A couple others like Sasse – who’s up for re-election – will grandstand and play Hamlet, before finally making a big speech and reluctantly voting for Trump.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:18 am1. Isn’t the WP the same oracle that supported Russia collusion for the last couple of Years?
J (2276f5) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:29 am2. It’s crappy writing to name unsourced rumours, something is suppose to be the leading characteristic of blogs
3. Our heroic Lt Col was a nothing burger. It was embarrassing seeing him in his blues playing politics
4. All these foggy bottom types seem to be outraged that our elected officials run policy. Weird
5. I get that Patterico hates trump but the outrage over every tweet is tiresome
6. Not every soldier is the model of integrity. They are human. Some voted for hilliary
rcocean:
Do you think Graham is dissing Trump in private? I don’t see or hear the evidence of that. I think if he was doing that, somebody would blow his cover, give the fulsomeness of his Trump praise.
Now, I could see someone like Rubio doing this…(And that pains me, as supporter of his in the ’16 primary.) I realize we fall on different sides of the Trump thing, but I think we can agree that the GOP establishment is doing an excellent weasel imitation right now.
Appalled (1a17de) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:31 amhttps://www.quora.com/Did-any-Republicans-publicly-defend-Richard-M-Nixon-during-and-after-the-Watergate-scandal
Some highlights:
* There was always a hardcore of about 25-30 percent who stood by Nixon consistently throughout the scandal. There were many stubborn Republicans and right-wing media outlets like the National Review that defended him until the evidence became overwhelming.
* There were grassroot movements by Rabbi Baruch Korff and Reverend Moon of the Unification Church who lashed themselves to Nixon’s cause, attracting thousands, even millions of followers. There were also astroturf movements of letter-writers and phone callers who were run directly out of the White House (a young Karl Rove among them.)
* As late as July, 1974,[Nixon resigned in early August of ’74] there were still 11 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee who voted against impeachment.
* It was only after the smoking gun tape came out on August 5th, 1974 that all mainstream support for Nixon evaporated. And even then, there were a handful of holdouts, most notably Earl Langrebe, who went on national TV August 8th and said “I’m standing by this President until he and I are taken out into the street and shot.”
On Fifth Avenue, perhaps, eh?
History rhymes.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:32 amThat’s not been an issue.
The only direct interaction Trump had with Zelensky was two telephone calls. We know what took place – and the only things left out was Trump elaborating on his accusations about the servers and about Biden. Which could make Trump look both better and worse. Better because he;s not asking for falsehood, and worse because it’s so stupid and more.
Without breaking ranks. And maybe siding with a different set of talking points.
No, they are not forced.
And they don’t have to pick a “side.”
And they can take time to think. They can be very deliberate in judgment. Even if that leaves them occasionally with nothing to say, when put on the spot.
Sammy Finkelman (337057) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:33 am#23
The issue is the FoxNews implication this guy is a Ukranian spy, and that he isn’t quite a true American because he wasn’t born here. (I would argue that is a truly un-american stance.)
Appalled (1a17de) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:33 amIt’s pretty basic. They’re not “forced” to defend Trump, they’re afraid to say anything contrary to Trump’s lies.
Paul Montagu (00daa1) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:34 am11. noel (f22371) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:43 am
Sammy Finkelman (337057) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:40 am@20 That article is mainly about what Sondland said and it comes with a lot of caveats about what isn’t said. We’re still not even close to so much evidence … that [extorting Ukraine for political benefit] really did happen … that arguing otherwise is impossible. We may get there but we aren’t there yet.
frosty (f27e97) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:40 am2. Gryph (08c844) — 10/30/2019 @ 8:11 am
That wasn’t true about Bill Clinton.
Of course, he fed the opposition with false stories.
Sammy Finkelman (337057) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:42 amI get a hesitance to criticize Trump on the part of some. Harder to understand is the fervent and eager rush to defend and make excuses for him on the part of others. It’s like Lindsey Graham but more pathetic.
JRH (52aed3) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:43 am@4. There are no patriots in this Congress, DRJ. ‘The Donald’ has beaten both bigger and smaller raps than this in the private sector all his adult life.
Busy, average Americans know how the so-called ‘rule of law’ operates:
Felicity Huffman did more jail time than Donald Trump ever will– or Richard Nixon ever did.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:48 am@22. McConnell will stage manage it and hand out the speaking roles. But a plum part should go to Cruz– watching him defend Trump will be a gloriously hypocritical performance– and a part must go to the lovely and talented Lindsey Graham– who will have his own, completely opposite words from the Clinton impeachment, read back to him by some clever Democrat in the chorus.
Pop the corn and order in some pizza, kids. Should be a great show! Because in this day and age, Americans don’t want to be governed- they wish to be entertained.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/30/2019 @ 10:59 amWere you the family entertainer, DCSCA? That seems to be your chosen role.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:02 amSo you didn’t read the link, 30.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:04 am@35. Don’t follow that comment, DRJ– but all the world’s a stage and Washington is pure theater– w/mutiple matinees daily– thanks to Twitter.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:12 amBreaking- Wildfires raging in Simi Valley, CA., threatening Reagan Library.
… And Putin smiled.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:14 amRWR is 3rd on the karmic payback list (and very undeserved of that predicament, in my humble opinion), DC….first would be Katie Hill snitches and 2nd would be the jury pool for the Rodney King verdict.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:21 amThis is waht he evidence actally shows:
First of all, Trump didn’t use U.S. military aid to do anything. He just sat on it, without really giving Mick Mulvaney a reason.
Well, he had:
“Why doesn’t Europe give them military aid?”
and
“What about corruption?”
He also mentioned to Mulvaney, in passing, the DNC server. I don’t know exactly what about the server. Apparently Crowdstrike in this verson of reality, is supposed to be a Ukrainian company and had taken possession of the server, and it is supposed to be hidden away in Ukraine and would, if examined – do precisely what now?
It’s all apparently spelled out in 4chan or reddit, but nobody in he mainstream media wants to repeat it, for fear that people will credit it.
Mulvaney and Sondland cooked up this scheme to get Ukraine to investigate the matters that Rudolph Giuliani was interested in, in the hopes that then the investigations would alter Donald Trump’s feelings about the Ukrainian government.
They didn’t tie military aid to it. They didn’t, for a long time, even reveal to Ukrainians that it was being held up. (if you find that incredible, consider that if they had, it might have leaked from the Ukrainians to Congress and undone their whole scheme, and rump would still be holding on to the aid.)
Sondland’s idea was to tie a meeting between Zelensky and Trump to investigations, and then the investigations would alter Donald Trump’s feelings about the Ukrainian government.
To get other U.S. officials to co-operate, he told some of them that military aid depended on it.
Now later on investigations got linked to military aid, but as soon as this became known, Trump disavowed it, and there’s no reason to believe he heard of it before he disavowed it, unless you think that Trump is capable of playing three dimensional chess..
Trump told Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis) on Sept 1, 2019, who had heard of the quid pro quo from Sondland on August 31, 2019, that that what he was hearing from him that day, was the first he ever heard of such a quid pro quo, and he never would do anything like that.
And a few days later he told Sondland, when Sondland called him that there was no quid pro quo.
And when pressure built up in Congress, the aid was released.
Mulvaney and Sondland were doing what Anonymous described in 2018 in a New York Times Op-ed:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html
anotherr thing: Doald Trump didn’t have a corrupt motive in asking Ukraine to help. That’s the whole point. And Donald Trump did not ask Ukraine to “dig up dirt” like Adam Schiff said.
And it could only have political benefit to him, if it affected people’s opinions of the Democratic Party and that it could only do if it mattered and was true.
Nor did Trump ask for a witch hunt. Donald Trump did not know (at least for sure) that this was all wrong. And if it was right, it was legitimate to try to substantiate it. And that’s his defense.
Sammy Finkelman (337057) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:24 am@39. Save the 707! Save the 707! It would be truly tragic to lose such a beautiful, vintage Boeing aircraft. 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:25 amYou don’t have to follow it. You don’t have to answer it, either. Let’s just call it an observation based on your comments in the past few years.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:28 amHere’s another one for Nikki’s parting gift collection.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:29 amoops
http://www.msichicago.org/explore/whats-here/exhibits/transportation-gallery/the-exhibit/united-airlines-boeing-727/
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:30 amOne of the truly beautiful things about this article is
isn’t even supported by the usual anonymous sources or people familiar with, etc. You’re supposed to infer it because a conclusion you come to yourself is more strongly held than one explicitly given.
So, yes, read that sentence in bold again and ask yourself who these Republicans are and why they shared their feelings with Rachael Bade, Karoun Demirjian, Mike DeBonis and Seung Min Kim. A capital R was used so surely these are members of the Republican Party, elected officials obviously. At least one specific Republican was mentioned in another part of the article so this must be a factual statement about real congressional Republicans. And Republicans with an ‘s’ must mean multiple people besides Mitt Romney. All of these things have to be true because Rachael, Karoun, Mike, and Seung said it in the WaPo, or did they.
frosty (f27e97) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:33 am@42. Welcome to 1964.
@43/@44. Sweet. Horribly noisy and smoky plane for it’s day, though. You’ve likely flown in one but go inside a restored 727 or 707 now and you can’t believe how cramped they are compared to today’s wide-body jets. It’s like walking through a cigar tube with wings.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:41 amYes, that does seem to be a pivotal year for you.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:43 amSo you don’t see any evidence of a quid pro quo. I do, but fine, let’s wait and see.
However, there is evidence that Trump has solicited a foreign government to investigate his political rival — perhaps his foremost political rival — and he made this request as President Trump, not as Candidate Trump or even Citizen Trump. Are you OK with that?
DRJ (15874d) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:44 amIf it is OK with you, then why was it not OK for Obama to audit conservatives? Both used their government positions to target their opponents.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:45 amOr, as I view it, both breached their fiduciary duties by using their government positions to further their personal and Party interests instead of American interests. That is wrong for any government employee. That many do it without being caught or prosecuted is no excuse to ignore it.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:47 amThe argument that Obama got away with it so Trump should, too, is particularly specious. There are probably crimes that could be charged, but not until a President leaves office. The only remedies available while they are in office are censure or impeachment. Congress makes that call, not the public, although public sentiment does impact Congress. When Congress doesn’t care about how a President acts and only cares about his Party, then there is no remedy in an unprincipled divided government.
Thank God we have never had a modern President actually kill someone on 5th Avenue or anywhere. At this point in our cultural decline, who knows what Congress might do.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:56 am@36 The 5 public confirmations of a quid pro quo between Trump and Ukraine
These are not 5 independent confirmations and they are not confirmations of a quid pro quo between Trump and Ukraine to get dirt on Biden.
All of these are restatements of things Gordon Sondland said as opposed to additional evidence. This is evidence of what Sondland said and believed but that’s about it.
About #4
meaning that this isn’t an admission that Trump told Johnson he was withholding aid from Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Biden.
About #5
This also isn’t an admission that Trump was withholding aid from Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Biden.
frosty (f27e97) — 10/30/2019 @ 12:02 pm@47-50.
Well over 90% of the Republican Party supports Trump. It’s ‘his’ party now. See #25, and the last bullet point: people are busy; they want clarity. Within a week of the smoking gun tape being revealed, support collapsed and The Big Dick was gone. In all likelihood, most Americans don’t even know what the heck “quid pro quo” means– it may be Latin but it’s Greek to them.
Rudy and Trump are going to keep fuzzing this up; dropping chaff. You want the GOP and a busy public to swing around and bring this guy down, demand clarity— a simple concise ‘gotcha’– “a smoking gun.” And even then, Trump loyalists won’t accept it– just as with Nixon.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/30/2019 @ 12:03 pmElizabeth warren said if israel doesn’t behave and do what I want I will with hold funding. Sorry never trumpers here not convictable. Trump has support of republican party you never trumpers have been run out of the republican party and are finished!
asset (17bad5) — 10/30/2019 @ 12:23 pm”Are you OK with that?”
DRJ (15874d) — 10/30/2019 @ 11:44 am
As if this is even a relevant question.
If the accusations here were, hypothetically, proved to be total BS — thus making it OK with you and everyone— we would just go back to something else. Tax returns, hacking, Stormy, collusion again, something brand new, you name it. It wouldn’t stop. It hasn’t stopped for three years straight.
There is no answer to that question that will ever satisfy you. Why bother?
Munroe (f5f3f1) — 10/30/2019 @ 12:26 pmI bother because I think it is important, Munroe. But you may be right that it isn’t important to care here.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/30/2019 @ 12:34 pmI voted for Trump in 2016 but now you’ve convinced me not to vote for him. So you have that going for you.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/30/2019 @ 12:36 pmFrosty @52.
There isn’t even one confirmation of any kind.
None of this was to get dirt on Biden. To “get dirt” implies a fishing expedition or a witch hunt. But nobody involved ever asked for anything like that.
This was a request to verify, or not, specific accusations against Biden, or to see if there was a fire where there was smoke.
Now the Democrats have it that no investigation should ever be launched by a Republican against a Democrat, regardless of the evidence, because they’re not resting their case on the falsity or the baselessness and the unreasonableness of the charges against Joe Biden.
But a Democrat can do it against a Republican because they will do it in a disguised way, AND THEY DON’T WANT THE REPUBLICANS TO FIND OUT HOW THE TRICK IS DONE, and therefore they don’t want the Republicans to discover the identity of thw whistleblower, and who he contacted or who contacted him.
Sammy Finkelman (337057) — 10/30/2019 @ 12:39 pmThe person to be ticked at, DRJ, isn’t Trump– he is who he is- it’s Pelosi. She knows better.
She was handed the Mueller Report six months ago that nailed Trump; she could have initiated impeachment proceedings then. But no. Do you seriously believe she wants to see a “President Pence”? He’s no Jerry Ford. And McConnell has to save the Senate– he isn’t going to torpedo a first term president of his own party, either. She has purposely dragged this out to muss up the Orange Man’s hair as reasonably close to the primaries and the 2020 election as possible so, hopefully from her POV the voters will end up doing the dirty work for her and she’ll reap the benefits in the House and McConnell manages to keep a slim GOP majority. She’s manipulating all of us.
And it stinks.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/30/2019 @ 12:41 pm”I voted for Trump in 2016 but now you’ve convinced me not to vote for him. So you have that going for you.”
DRJ (15874d) — 10/30/2019 @ 12:36 pm
Flattered that I have that kind of influence.
President Warren will know who to thank then.
Munroe (f5f3f1) — 10/30/2019 @ 12:45 pm#48
I’ll chime in…
I’m not “okay” with how Trump approached this. I’ll use Alan Dershwitz’s description that this is a “political sin”, not impeachment worthy.
POTUS must avoid appearances of improprieties…. that’s why there are a lot of internal guardrail that separates much of the DOJ from the political machination of the whitehouse.
Trump is getting himself in trouble here. He should’ve recognized that since Joe Biden is likely his political 2020 election opponent, he should do what he can to avoid appearances of improprieties.
That is the political sin on Trump’s part, or a maladministration as Madison argued which shouldn’t be a reason for impeachment.
However, Joe Biden (and Hunter) shouldn’t be shielded from such investigations simply because he’s running for President. Trump should’ve directed the DOJ’s foreign relations department to invoke the treaty to get Ukrainian assistance and stayed out of the way. That way, the career officials are the adult in the room and will investigate in good faith.
whembly (fd57f6) — 10/30/2019 @ 12:47 pmin that regard her district’s composition is a detriment in that it is one particular subgroup that always seems to prattle “…but Penth is worsth!!”
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/30/2019 @ 12:50 pm#49
We don’t know that Obama gave that code red…
It’s also likely that the IRS leaders where responding to Obama’s public complaints of his opponents, in a Henry II’s:
Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?
…and acted on it with a lot of supportive ‘wink wink‘ from their superiors.
Given what we know, no… Obama shouldn’t be impeached for that. (I think he should’ve been impeached based on his Droning policy, but the public wouldn’t go for that).
whembly (fd57f6) — 10/30/2019 @ 12:51 pm‘Trump’s attack on the Purple Heart recipient unnerved Republicans in Congress…’
Didn’t seem too ‘unnerving’ to Republicans when they were ‘swiftboating’ John Kerry; he has three of them.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/30/2019 @ 1:02 pmI agree with your point, but is there any evidence that President Obama directed, authorized, or even had prior knowledge of, the IRS practices you’re referring to?
Dave (9797c1) — 10/30/2019 @ 1:09 pm@63 I think the Henry/Becket reference also applies to this thing with Ukraine. What we’ve heard from Johnson, Mulvaney, and Sondland so far has a lot of “I understood Trump to mean …”, the stuff coming from Sondland especially.
frosty (f27e97) — 10/30/2019 @ 1:12 pm“John Kerry; he has three of them”
I think this checks out, the only medals he threw over the capitol fence as a protest stunt belonged to someone else.
harkin (337580) — 10/30/2019 @ 1:13 pmAnd for Vindman (who, unlike the congress-critters, probably doesn’t have a cushy, lucrative lobbying job waiting for him in the private sector after Trump takes his revenge) it shows remarkable bravery to stand up for the truth.
Dave (9797c1) — 10/30/2019 @ 1:24 pmSo… regarding Vindman’s statements that the transcripts wasn’t complete….
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/politics/white-house-classified-computer-system.html
“The transcript released by the White House of Mr. Trump’s July call with Mr. Zelensky was accurate and comprehensive, a Ukrainian official familiar with it said, adding that significant information was not omitted, including by the ellipses.”
How do you square that reporting to Vindman’s statements?
whembly (fd57f6) — 10/30/2019 @ 1:36 pm(I referenced this in my previous discussion with another poster and at the time I couldn’t find this article, but it is still relevant here)
“Privately, several Republicans found Vindman’s testimony to be damaging and lamented that once again they were forced to defend the president.”
It’s fair to criticize this. Personally I absolutely believe this statement and don’t believe it to be made up out of whole cloth. But it would be much better to say “4 Members of the House” or, whatever it is. If you can’t get a source to go on the record, then be as specific as possible. Otherwise you give people an excuse to call it “fake news.” Irresponsible and bad reporting.
JRH (52aed3) — 10/30/2019 @ 1:42 pmWhembly, remember Ukraine has a significant interest in staying on Trump’s good side, and not appearing to support the Democrats. They can always make nice with a Democratic president after November 2020. Until then….
kishnevi (845597) — 10/30/2019 @ 1:43 pmwhembly (fd57f6) — 10/30/2019 @ 1:36 pm
The omissions aren’t really important. It’s just Trump giving more detail on what he wants investigated. Helpful to us, but it doesn’t change anything.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 10/30/2019 @ 1:48 pm@67. Were they taped to a copy of the Pentagon Papers? To quote Ronald Reagan, “I don’t recall.”
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/30/2019 @ 1:56 pmDem’s seem to bail quickly on their people having some sexy-time problems.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/30/2019 @ 1:57 pmVindman already has been partially cut out of things since about mid-Augist. Trump’s people – which probably means Mulvaney – probably suspected he was the whistleblower for awhile, and now suspect he was the whistlleblower’s source, although he probably wasn’t.
Republicans on the committee were pressed into questioning Vindman over whether he was the whistleblower’s source – whom did he tell etc? That was their complaint here.
Mulvaney is also maybe blaming Eisenberg for creating the whole problem by putting the trancript in the very secure NICE system.
There’s an investigation going on at the White House over whether he should have:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/us/politics/white-house-review-ukraine.html?module=inline
The thing is, putting the transcript in the secure system was the legal hook for the whistleblower complaint. (this interfered, in a very minor and insubstantial way, with analysts charged with looking at foreign interference in U.S. elections from doing their jobs.)
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 10/30/2019 @ 1:59 pmSwift-boating John Kerry = Telling the truth about him.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/30/2019 @ 1:59 pmIts hard to know how many Medals John Kerry has, since he threw them all over a fence in “Disgust” over the Vietnam war. Which is why in 1984 he ran as a “war Hero” and “Proud Vietnam Vet”. Despite behaving like “Jengis Khan”. Later he kept his Medals on display in his office, stating he’d actually thrown “some Puerto Rican guys medals” over the fence.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/30/2019 @ 2:03 pm@77. ROFLMAO Impeaching Donald Trump = Telling the truth about him.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/30/2019 @ 2:04 pmOf course Kerry’s from Massachusetts, the state that worshiped a coward who left to die, and Congressman who ran gay prostitution ring from his basement. IRC, there was another one that like Male pages, but even he may have been too much for Massachusetts voters.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/30/2019 @ 2:05 pmOh my bad. I overestimated Massachusetts. Gary Studds was reelected six times after his “affair” with 17 year old male page. Massachusetts what a great state. Evidently, the only unforgivable thing to them is voting Pro-life.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/30/2019 @ 2:07 pmWho are the “you guys” you assume I’m one of?
I’m just sitting here on the opposite coast watching what’s going on, and reading the weird comments I see coming from ardent Trumpsters — who really do believe that Trump is the most trustworthy, selfless patriot in D.C.
If Trump represents “good governance,” why has he had such extraordinarily high turnover, and now so many “acting” cabinet positions? Why have so many people who worked around him expressed dismay at the way he operates, while those who worry about reelection express their concerns and alarm in whispers?
It’s long past time to leave behind the belief that Donald Trump would save us from the sins of politicians, or that he has some special genius for fixing everything.
Radegunda (68077f) — 10/30/2019 @ 2:09 pmKerry is an interesting fellow. He’s not all bad, but he’s such an egomaniac/liar he screws up even when he does something half-way good. For example, he was a swift boat commander and was WIA, that’s good, but he was a BAD Swift-boat commander and all the rest of them, couldn’t stand Kerry. He was a cowardly, incompetent, and wrote himself up for Purple hearts for minor wounds (one of which was due to his own carelessness) – and then used his WIA’s to get himself rotated out before his tour was up.
He then posed as the great war hero, until the early 70s when it was “Uncool” to be Vietnam Vet. He then turned into a Peacenik Vietnam Vet loudly proclaiming against our “terrible racist war” and threw his medal away (or Puerto Rican guys medals). He then flipped back in the 80s, when the tide turned in favor of the Vets. So, he was no in 1984, RAMBO, Mr. Vietnam war hero.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/30/2019 @ 2:15 pmNo that’s not clear. Kerry has said the following at various times:
1) He threw his medals over the fence
2) He threw “some Puerto Rican Guys” medals over the fence. And gave “the impression” they were his.
3) He threw his campaign ribbons over the fence. And said they were medals
So what’s the truth? Answer: It doesn’t matter – he’s a Massachusetts Democrat.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/30/2019 @ 2:25 pmrE; lINK @20.
1. This attempted quid pro quo by Sundland does not involve military aid to Ukraine. But rather is investigation for meeting. Bolton believed thsi issue should be of no concern to the NSC
2. By September, Sundland was talking about military aid too.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 10/30/2019 @ 2:32 pm3. Ron Johnson 1:
And the next day he called Trump, who denied all knowledge of this.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-used-potential-meeting-to-pressure-ukraine-on-biden-texts-indicate-11570205661
The Washington Post doesn’t tell you that.
Of course Senator Ron Johnson doesn’t tell you what Trump after he said that Sundland had told him that.
4. Ron Johnson 2. This tells you the continuation of the conversation related in #3.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/04/ron-johnson-says-trump-blocked-him-assuring-ukraine-aid/3862948002/
Nothing about Biden, though…
More:
Trump admitted that the military aid was being withheld, but had no specific conditions for releasing it – no quid pro quo. He said he wanted to be convinced that the country was no longer so corrupt.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 10/30/2019 @ 2:34 pm5. Mick Mulvaney specifically denied that the quid pro quo had anything to do with a Biden investigation. Only maybe the 2016 election.
Mulvaney’s justification, or precedent for a quid pro quo (or a president adding conditions of his own devising for aid to a country) was what Trump had done with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador where he had demanded they help prevent their citizens from reaching the Mexican border with the United States and applying for asylum.
But Trump had done that in public, not secretly. And Pentagon had ruled that a president had no such power to withhold the Ukrainain military aid. (Mulvaney overruled that)
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 10/30/2019 @ 2:39 pmThen he probably shouldn’t have said, many times, in listening distance to network cameras and dozens of people in his administration, that he did it.
He said it, he did it, it is corrupt, that he doesn’t recognize it as such, is the problem.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/30/2019 @ 2:43 pm@88 Can you clarify what you mean by it?
frosty (0bf243) — 10/30/2019 @ 2:53 pm31. Bill Clinton was a Democrat. And that has nothing to do with my assertion that with better retail politics, Trump could easily gloss over how corrupt his administration is. “Trump” (the brand) uber alles.
Gryph (08c844) — 10/30/2019 @ 3:24 pmAhh, perfect Trumpist response. What were we talking about? could be anything, probably about cheating at golf. Yeah, that’s it, that’s the ticket. Probably not talking about the subject of the post and 90 odd comments, nah, it’s golf.
We’re definitely not talking about Trump confirming that he asked the President of Ukraine…Squirrel…what is Ukraine, is that a golf course, the dog, sit Ukraine sit…Squirrel Ukraine Squirrel…
Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 10/30/2019 @ 4:22 pm@91 I’m not sure if this is in response to @89 or not. The original topic of this thread was republican response to Trump’s comments about Vindman.
@91 Looks like it dropped in from the twitter thread and @88 looks like it slide in from the “what was left out” thread. Given that maybe we can try multiple choice.
Does it refer to Trump:
a) asking Ukraine to investigate corruption generally
frosty (0bf243) — 10/30/2019 @ 5:09 pmb) telling Ukraine he wouldn’t send them aid unless they investigated corruption generally
c) asking Ukraine to investigate Biden
d) telling Ukraine they wouldn’t get aid unless they investigated Biden
e) telling Ukraine they had to come up with something on Biden to get the aid
f) some other definition that I haven’t listed
Only choice C is somewhat true.
Only somewhat because Trump didn’t ask Ukraine to investigate Biden in general; he asked them to look into a very specific allegation (although maybe we can’t tell exactly because of the lost words.)
But if he continued talking about what he was talking about before when he mentioned Biden, and there referred to a recording where Biden said something that “sounded horrible” to him, it was the claim that Biden had gotten a prosecutor fired in order to halt an investigation into Burisma, on whose board his son, Hunter, sat, besides getting money from it in a variety of other ways.
Choice A is wrong, although it might be included or implied; Choice B is not true, because while he may have told Senator Ron Johnson that about six weeks later, he didn’t tell Ukraine; Choice D is flat out wrong; Choice E is absolutely not true, and Choice F might also be marked right..
It was a complete surprise to many of the people in the United States listening in to that call that Trump went into this subject. It was just supposed to be a pro forma call. But Donald Trump had his own mind, and he not only went into the subject of things Ukraine could help in investigating, but the things he waned them to check out were almost complete nonsense. Especially whatever the Crowdstrike and DNC server stuff was.
Sammy Finkelman (337057) — 10/31/2019 @ 3:52 amAll of the Republicans in the House will be “forced” to vote with Trump today. To defend this modern Nixon. Trump has been involving foreign governments in his dirty tricks, for years, since the day he asked Russia to find her emails.
Watergate by proxy.
noel (f22371) — 10/31/2019 @ 5:38 amJimmy Kimmel’s mash-up of Trump-Obama speeches the other day was hilarious.
What also might be interesting to see is a mash-up of Nixon-Trump defenses. Attacks on the media, their opponents and others. Playing the victim. Lies and exaggerations etc.
Like these gems from Nixon: “I would have made a good Pope.”
noel (f22371) — 10/31/2019 @ 5:49 am“When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.”
@93 Agreed and C isn’t obviously corrupt. I was trying to give a reasonable set to get something from @88.
frosty (f27e97) — 10/31/2019 @ 5:51 amInteresting assertion. Mulvaney should testify to that effect under oath. I would expect there to be some documentary evidence that supports it. At the very least there should be corroborating witnesses. It would be great if this testimony and evidence provided an explanation as to why the presidents personal attorney had the lead and not the department of state.
Time123 (7cca75) — 10/31/2019 @ 5:51 am@97 If the standard is documentary evidence then I’m still expecting some that a qpq existed at all. Asking Mulvaney why Giuliani was involved is asking for speculation. Why Trump had him in there is something I’d expect from Trump.
frosty (f27e97) — 10/31/2019 @ 6:12 amI should be more clear; I mean documentary evidence that corroborates the testimony. Things like contemporaneous notes, meeting minutes, emails or text following up, continuing or clarifying on conversations. Ambassador Taylor reportedly had some of that to support his testimony.
Additionally, people generally create less of a paper trail when they’re doing something they know is wrong. So I would expect there to be a lot more of a paper trail on a legitimate attempt to address corruption than I would if it were a fig leaf to cover an corrupt attempt to have Ukraine smear a political rival.
I haven’t seen much of anything from the Trump administration that makes me think they’re motivated to fight corruption generally. I’m willing to change my mind. But I’d like more evidence that a statement to the media. The Lewendoski testimony, and the response from the white house, established that team trump feels no obligation to be truthful when making statements to the press.
Time123 (235fc4) — 10/31/2019 @ 6:26 amRepublicans just have to expose that whistleblower. But why?
A) Distraction
B) Intimidation
C) Suppress future truth-tellers
D) They are zombies
noel (f22371) — 10/31/2019 @ 6:38 amSF: 5. Mick Mulvaney specifically denied that the quid pro quo had anything to do with a Biden investigation. Only maybe the 2016 election.
Time123 (7cca75) — 10/31/2019 @ 5:51 am
He absolutely said that in that press conference, more than one time, although The Biden thing is so much in people’s minds, and thee Democrats are talking only about Biden, that it was missed, possibly with some help from partisans.
In the telephone call, Trump referred to Crowdstrike first at greater length first, and at greater length (saying for instance how “they say” a lot of the investigation into his 2016 campaign that Mueller completed started with Ukraine) And he only mentioned the Biden matter as “the other thing.”
And I think it is pretty clear the Biden matter came up later.
It’s interesting: Schiff thinks there’s a defense to asking Ukraine about the DNC hacking or he thinks that asking about Biden can be characterized as wrong in a way that doesn’t apply to asking something about anything else besides a possible political opponent.
Or, another reason: He just doesn’t want any kind of accusations against Democrats explored – because even if the main accusation is absurd, you can still segue into things.
And he’s hoping that any examination of why Trump might have believed the Biden accusations can be prevented by saying, but not in so many words that it doesn’t matter if Trump was right about Biden! It’s still grounds for impeachment. So it’s irrelevant even though, by the way, that’s not what Biden said he did and Burisma wasn’t under investigation at the time.
Sammy Finkelman (b1f8c4) — 10/31/2019 @ 6:43 amThey all should, and they are mostly all going to, except that Schiff wants tight control over subpoenas, so that they don’t hear from Giuliani and/or his supporting witnesses, because that could offer some justification to Trump.
Schiff also would want to make sure that Biden’s not on hand to ‘splain what he said in his January 23, 2018 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations because it’s not that simple. Biden made things up.
This whole anecdote about the scheduled announcement of a loan guarantee of $1.5 billion that he was going to present at in Kiev but he told them to fire the prosecutor first, and he told them he could withhold the money even though he’s not the president, just call…is almost certainly a made up story.
Sammy Finkelman (b1f8c4) — 10/31/2019 @ 6:45 amThere should be a lot of testimony, but I’m not sure what would be written, except maybe in text messages.
What’s written is that the OMB (which Mulvaney was also in charge of, besides being Acting White House Chief of Staff – and he wants to keep it acting) sent a message to other eople in the government that said that the money was withheld. But it didn’t say why.
If there are any reasons written at any sage it probably would be: (judging fro the leaks)
1) To encourage European countries to cough up some money too for military aid.
2) Because Ukraine didn’t have a good enough record on corruption generally.
Pentagon lawyers said Trump did not have any right to withhold the money, but OMB overruled them.
Giuliani would say that was first, by accident, and then because they wanted to avoid using too much pressure on Ukraine by involving the official U.S. government.
It wasn’t his idea to withhold aid. (or was it? Taht;s aquestion to ask Giuliani.
The Democrats want to make believe that Trump was playing 5-dimensional chess.
Sammy Finkelman (b1f8c4) — 10/31/2019 @ 6:50 am@100 Schiff lied about the claims the whistleblower made, which means he’s lied about the investigation itself. Now we’re told we don’t need the whistleblower at all because we’ve got Vindman even though Vindman’s public statements don’t support the basis of the impeachment probe.
So, we’ve got another investigation premised on misinformation. It’s perfectly reasonable to dig into that.
frosty (f27e97) — 10/31/2019 @ 7:00 amThe whistleblower says “hey I think there was a problem here.”
The IG says “I looked at this, I know the whistleblower has some bias but it’s still a credible and urgent issue. Congress needs to be told.”
Congress investigates and finds evidence that the initial concerns may be valid.
What do I have wrong about this?
Time123 (7cca75) — 10/31/2019 @ 7:18 amSammy, you’re presenting all sorts potential explanations. If they’re true there should be some testimony and evidence to support them. Is that available? I haven’t heard that Rudy is willing to testify. In fact he’s been asked and is refusing. If his testimony explains everything maybe he should give it.
Time123 (235fc4) — 10/31/2019 @ 7:20 amLOL.
Dave (1bb933) — 10/31/2019 @ 7:37 am@105 You’re missing the part about Schiff lying about the whistleblower complaint. Even if this was an otherwise valid investigation that is an issue. The IG doesn’t wash the whistleblower blower and take all questions about the whistleblower off the table.
The overall response to questions about the whistleblower has been some version of @100 which just draws more attention to the issue. This makes it look like all smoke that incriminates Trump should be investigated but we should ignore distractions that might take away from incriminating Trump.
frosty (f27e97) — 10/31/2019 @ 7:57 am@107 Anything can be excused to get Trump because Trump supporters are willing to excuse anything? Where does that leave someone like me who says investigate everything?
frosty (f27e97) — 10/31/2019 @ 8:32 amI watched Schiff’s statement. I don’t think he was trying to enter false information into the investigation. I think he was trying to characterize the memo in a way that was unflattering, insulting, and funny. I think it was inappropriate and that he shouldn’t have done it. But I don’t think it has an impact on the validity of the investigation because the investigation isn’t based on schiff’s characterization. It’s based on the accusations made in the complaint, and the evidence that’s found from those investigations.
There is evidence (the memo of the call, testimony from people on the call, testimony from Tayor, text messages and corroborating notes etc) that validated the whistleblowers complaint. At this point, I don’t think the whistleblower matters. Had the investigation not quickly found so much additional evidence I might feel differently.
I understand that you feel Trump is being targeted unfairly. I don’t’ share that feeling here. It doesn’t look to me like this is a made-up crime. It looks to me like he tried to abuse his office for his political gain. Investigating a US citizen without a reasonable suspicion of a crime is wrong. Using military aid to get a foreign government to do it to a political rival is even worse. If Trump did that he, and others that were involved, should be held accountable.
Time123 (7cca75) — 10/31/2019 @ 8:44 am@109.
Time123 (6e9135) — 10/31/2019 @ 8:51 amI don’t feel anything is justified. I feel that this is justified.
@110
I wouldn’t say unfairly. I would say improperly. Impeachment is a serious thing. If there are questions about the whistleblower the answer isn’t to just ignore them.
How about we agree for this discussion that everything you believe Trump did is true so that I’m not arguing the whistleblower issue to clear Trump. What happens if everything about the whistleblower is false? If the entire thing was fabricated with full knowledge of the IG would it still be something that doesn’t matter now? What if we slide the scale down and the IG was clean but the whistleblower and Schiff manipulated the process? We can slide this around however you like since we’re in a hypothetical and I’m trying to figure out where the line is between this and anything.
frosty (f27e97) — 10/31/2019 @ 9:41 am99. Time123 (235fc4) — 10/31/2019 @ 6:26 am
But he only knows what Sondland told him, and Sundland was winging it. He was making things up as he went along.
Just look at this quote:
Taylor:
Not that Trump or Mulvaney or anybody else that Sondland might have been taking instructions from had made a mistake, but that he, Sondland, had made a mistake. And in the end he concluded that maybe even something more than the security assistance depended on (helping Giuliani?).
Sondland was picking and choosing what to say to the Ukrainians. With good reason, because the Ukrainians might complain to Congress. And there’d be an uproar in Congress about it, as eventually happened. (although in the end, it was leaked first to Politico and the Ukrainians learned that there was a hold on the aid as a result of the Politico story.)
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/767080125/texts-show-top-u-s-diplomat-in-ukraine-concerned-over-possible-quid-pro-quo
Only on September 1 (well after the July 25 call) does Taylor ask if the security assistance is contingent on help with investigations.
in the end Sondland concluded that maybe even something more than the security assistance depended on (helping Giuliani?).
Sondland came up with the idea thar the Ukrainains should announce they were starting and investigation. All this was without consulting Donald Trump. Taylor was worried:
“Let’s hope it works.”
Could there be any srronger evidence that Gordon Sondland was guessing what might move Trump to release the hold?
Or considered wrong. That was the case with Sondland, who from time to time, would tell others to stop texting call him (voice, not recorded)
And Mulvaney also probably didn’t put much, if anything, on the record. And those were the only two speaking about keeping the security assistance hostage.
Sammy Finkelman (b1f8c4) — 10/31/2019 @ 9:55 amWell, Jonah Goldberg writes that corruption was the only legal basis for withholding aid. I don’t know if that’s correct.
That;s right. No, he wasn’t.
Trump thought that the Ukrainians had been against his election, as they indeed had been because Putin was for him (even though he turned out to do more for Ukrainian independence than Obama did) and he also wanted to know the truth about all the stuff that Giuliani was being fed. The best guess is that he was just sour on Ukraine.
The Pentagon warned that if the aid was not approved by August 6, they would not be able to get all the money out the door by September 30, when the appropriation expired, and that would violate the Impoundment Control Act (passed as a result of Nixon’s power grab in January, 1973. I’m not sure what it says but I guess at a minimum it says if appropriated money is not spent the president has to make it official and give Congress some chance to pass a law overruling him)
In the end, after it was finally okayed on September 11, the Pentagon found, as it predicted, that it could not get about half the money out the door in time, and Congress had to include a rider in the continuing resolution re-authorizing the spending (technically de-appropriating it for Fiscal 2019 and putting it into the Fiscal 2020 appropriation.)
See https://www.justsecurity.org/66767/exclusive-white-house-ignored-pentagon-warning-on-ukraine-funding.
Sammy Finkelman (b1f8c4) — 10/31/2019 @ 10:12 amI think you’re asking, “Under what circumstances would the details about the whistleblower be pertinent to the impeachment.”
My answer is; When there is no evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that the initial complaint was legitimate, or worse, when there is evidence that the initial complaint was false. Under those circumstances, I think the questions about who the whistleblower is and why they filed the complaint are very relevant and need to be answered. My understanding is that the IG is supposed to make sure that the complaint is based on a reasonable suspicion before the direct it be sent to congress.
In this case there appears to be evidence to support a reasonable suspicion and then some.
Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood your question.
I’m curious about what more you want to know about the whistleblower? Since their concern appears to be valid what is the impact of their potential bias?
Time123 (f5cf77) — 10/31/2019 @ 10:52 amYes, he could testify to that under oath with corroborating evident and provide a coherent explanation for why he did that.
Time123 (f5cf77) — 10/31/2019 @ 10:55 am116. Yes, yoou;re right, there could be stronger evidence that Gordon Sondland was guessing what might move Trump to release the hold and so on, but of what we now know, what could be better?
I don’t know how much Sondland is going to want to admit he was acting a lot on his own.
Sondland has already made a secret deposition – we may see the transcript soon. The WSJ already saw his opening statement.
It’s been leaked to the WSJ that he’s been contradicted in that others say he names things to be investigated and maybe Sondland says he didn’t or at least says he didn’t mention Biden.
Sondland maybe says nobody expressed any objections to him, and does not recall the meeting being cut short, but maybe Bolton did that unobtrusively.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gordon-sondlands-testimony-about-ukraine-investigations-under-scrutiny-11572378583
Well both descriptions could be correct or close to correct.
This doesn’ get into what the real interest shold be in Sondland’s testimony.
Sondland apparently says he never said exactly what should be investigated. Bolton might have gently cut it short. Nobody probably complained in front of Sondland.
Bolton has been subpoenaed. So we get a good version.
Sammy Finkelman (b1f8c4) — 10/31/2019 @ 11:15 am110. Time123 (7cca75) — 10/31/2019 @ 8:44 am
The question is, was he hoping to fool the casual Internet or television viewer who only saw his opening statement or provide fodder for YouTube?
They all had the transcript by then.
The New York Times ran a whole thing about how the whistleblower was borne out.
But he was wrong on one key point that the New York Times did not mention (previously the had tried to see that in some of Trump’s words
Trump did NOT ask that Zelensky retain Lutsenko as Prosecutor General. Now where did that come from, and why was it asserted?
Sammy Finkelman (b1f8c4) — 10/31/2019 @ 11:21 amThe name of the whistleblower has sort of leaked: 33-year old CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, who formerly worked for both John Brennan and Joe Biden, and left the White House NSC staff in the spring of 2017, shortly after Mueller was appointed.
He is a registered Democrat who played a minor role in the 2016 campaign, helping to do research on Donald Trump, and is said to be pretty vocal in his negative opinion of Trump.
Republicans repeatedly brought up his name in the secret depositions, without saying he was the whistleblower, (they would be privy to his name) and Adam Schiff intends, or intended to, redact his name in the transcript, and when Vindman testified an argument broke out when Chairman Schiff stopped Republicans from asking him whether he had talked to Ciaramella, or to anyone maybe.
Sammy Finkelman (b1f8c4) — 10/31/2019 @ 11:52 amWell, Vindman’s testimony didn’t last 24 hours. First there were the four people that corroborated on the final edit of the phone call, all have said the Vindman recollection is wrong.
Now we have
“… that he did not believe Trump had discussed anything illegal during the conversation. ‘I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,’ former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison”
Vindman is like the Whistleblower, an inside plant, installed by Brennen and Schiff, reading from a script written by Schiff.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/31/2019 @ 4:36 pm@120
What specifically was he wrong about?
Time123 (d54166) — 10/31/2019 @ 4:42 pm121. His requested edits, of things he heard, were shot down by those whose job it was to write the summary. Those things Vindman wanted added, were never spoken.
Morrison said nothing on the call was out of line, and raised zero concerns by those in positions to make such conclusions. Vindman is out of his lane. What ever opinion he has, it has no value.
Morrison was Senior Director of European Affairs. What was Vindman? G6?
iowan2 (9c8856) — 10/31/2019 @ 5:06 pmIts ridiculous to get into a detailed discussion about what Vineman said, when we don’t know what he said.
rcocean (1a839e) — 10/31/2019 @ 5:22 pmThat’s right. We’re stuck for now. We don’t even know if the people who disputed something know what he said. We only have fragments. We can do something with the fragments and the leaks, but for some things we run into an impasse.
I didn’t read that his edits were shot down, but that the process was maybe cut short. One proposed edit I read about, that Trump referred to a recording of Biden in a gap in the transcript that is followed by “It sounded horrible to me” makes a great deal of sense to me. I can’t see them leaving out Zelensky saying the name Burisma but possibly “the company ou mentioned” was a placeholder for the name of a company they needed help on figuring out. Or that’s just inaccurate.
Sammy Finkelman (b1f8c4) — 10/31/2019 @ 6:38 pmAmash put it well wrt to his former GOP colleagues…
Paul Montagu (00daa1) — 10/31/2019 @ 11:27 pmSo does Supreme Leader Kim…
Paul Montagu (00daa1) — 10/31/2019 @ 11:32 pm@125 Maybe so, things certainly aren’t the same and we can’t unwind the clock. Before Trump people had some trust in most institutions. Not everyone, not complete trust, and not equally in all institutions but some in most. After Trump we know the IC, DOJ, media, and congressional D’s will lie and otherwise do what they need to maintain their power. If the senate had enough D’s this entire process would be done behind closed doors on vague allegations within a week, the next week would be for Pence, and they would continue until they got a replacement to their liking. Trump opponents have to see the damage they’re doing with these tactics but instead they are papered over with these “why are you making me do this” crap.
frosty (f27e97) — 11/1/2019 @ 7:39 amThis president will be in power for only a short time, but excusing his misbehavior will forever tarnish your name.
Yeah, that ship sailed over 20 years ago. The republicans who need to step outside their media and social bubble are, and have been for decades now, the ones who don’t know anyone who drives a pickup truck and who feel that they are “forced” to defend themselves for not knowing such people.
PTw (894877) — 11/1/2019 @ 7:51 amYeah, it’s Amash who needs to step out of whatever bubble he’s floating in. The Trumpablicans are taking the pulse of their constituents and 7 out of 10 hearts in their state or district pound for Trump. It’s the political reality, and it needs to be dealt with not denied.
nk (dbc370) — 11/1/2019 @ 8:00 amPTw,
Because the common people know that the appropriate use of the power of the Presidency is to bully a small country under assault from Putin into cooking up dirt on the relatives of your enemies. I mean, if Joe Common was President, that creepy neighbor of his would see some justice, big time.
I mean, the best defence of the President right now is that, however corrupt the intent, he was so incoherent and incompetent that the couldn’t achieve his objectives. I mean, think of the horror of President Willard. He and his technocrats would have gotten all sorts of stuff done, but nobody would be advising us that the Fake News is the Enemy of the People.
Appalled (1a17de) — 11/1/2019 @ 8:05 amI hear these accusations, but Barr didn’t charge Comey. Mccabe hasn’t been charged. The dept. of state released a report on the handling of emails when Hillary was in charge that basically said no one was trying to do anything wrong.
Seems like a lot of the accusation of ‘deep state’ conspiracy haven’t been backed up. Maybe the IG report or the Durham investigation show some conspiracy, but so far nothing has been proven.
Time123 (353edd) — 11/1/2019 @ 8:16 am@130 The best defense of the president is that right now the only evidence that Trump bullied Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden is an interpretation of what Sondland said he thought was going on.
The transcript of the call doesn’t say that, the opening statement of Vindman doesn’t say that, and what’s been leaked from the closed door testimony doesn’t indicate that.
frosty (f27e97) — 11/1/2019 @ 8:30 am@131 And Mueller didn’t clear Trump but we’re still retelling the story of how that investigation proved Trump was guilty. The argument that institutions that have shown themselves to be corrupt have investigated themselves and given themselves the all clear isn’t exactly the sort of stuff that restores faith and trust.
frosty (f27e97) — 11/1/2019 @ 8:35 amIf this Ukrainian kerfuffle tastes like thin gruel to me (and it does), it has to taste like swill to Trump’s True Believers, and those are the people who matter to Trump’s ostensible defenders in Congress. They have no real faith in, or loyalty to, Trump. They’re just scared of being voted out of their phony-baloney jobs. Harrumph.
nk (dbc370) — 11/1/2019 @ 8:40 am”The dept. of state released a report on the handling of emails when Hillary was in charge that basically said no one was trying to do anything wrong.”
Time123 (353edd) — 11/1/2019 @ 8:16 am
Really? Is that how you would write it up if you were a WaPo reporter? Probably.
30K deleted emails were not part of the review. Starting Jan 20, 2017, that would be considered obstruction of justice so I guess she lucked out on the timing.
Munroe (138863) — 11/1/2019 @ 8:41 amIf you’re right then why hasn’t she been charged? Trump’s been running the DOJ for 3 years. I assume they did this investigation because they were looking for evidence of something criminal. It does not appear they found it.
Time123 (ae9d89) — 11/1/2019 @ 8:50 amBecause the common people know that the appropriate use of the power of the Presidency
OK bubble boy…Here’s where you (and similar) need to get a clue. Not everyone who drives a pickup truck is an ignorant red neck. Many are millionaires who know how to build things. Big things. Many are hard working people who understand the difference between philosophy and what really works in reality. Many know the Constitution inside and out better than 80% of the critters in congress. Get out of your bubble, bubble boy. And yes, Fake News, much like fake intellectualism, is the friend of the elitist eloi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI3UfxyIdgs
PTw (894877) — 11/1/2019 @ 8:53 amTrump’s team has been running those organizations. You really think Pompeo did a huge review of how emails were handled at the Dept of State under Hillary because he wanted to clear her? At what point is the guy in charge accountable for the results?
Time123 (ae9d89) — 11/1/2019 @ 8:54 am”If you’re right then why hasn’t she been charged? Trump’s been running the DOJ for 3 years. I assume they did this investigation because they were looking for evidence of something criminal. It does not appear they found it.”
Time123 (ae9d89) — 11/1/2019 @ 8:50 am
Well fortunately Trump hasn’t been charged with anything either. Otherwise, he’d be hounded incessantly for three years straight with allegations of wrongdoing, and thankfully we’ve been spared that.
Munroe (138863) — 11/1/2019 @ 9:08 amCalm the f down, Mike Rowe (#137).
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 11/1/2019 @ 9:23 amCalm the f down, Mike Rowe (#137).
I’m sorry. Did I upset you? Normally, I would have just let your comment go but hey, Mike Rowe? That’s a huge compliment. Thank you!
PTw (894877) — 11/1/2019 @ 9:41 am@131 It doesn’t help that the standard for no institutional corruption is “proven in court” but the standard for impeachment is “who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes”.
frosty (f27e97) — 11/1/2019 @ 9:53 am@139, You didn’t answer the question.
Time123 (ae9d89) — 11/1/2019 @ 9:54 am@143: Let’s go in chronological order. Answer mine first.
Munroe (138863) — 11/1/2019 @ 10:03 amAn indictment would be something. So would an IG report with evidence.
Time123 (353edd) — 11/1/2019 @ 10:11 am@144 OK
You said
Your question is how would I report it of i wrote for the post.
If I were a report I’d quote the source material more closely and not paraphrase it as much as I did above. I would say
See page 8 of the report
I’ve made a good faith effort to answer your question. Will you do the same?
Time123 (353edd) — 11/1/2019 @ 10:17 am*reporter
Time123 (353edd) — 11/1/2019 @ 10:18 amIowa2 writes: “Vindman is like the Whistleblower, an inside plant, installed by Brennen and Schiff, reading from a script written by Schiff.”
Wow. What incredible knowledge you have gleaned from some dark place.
noel (f22371) — 11/1/2019 @ 10:20 am@138
is an argument that started as disingenuous but has now become dishonest. One of the predicates for the Mueller probe was that Trump fired Comey because he wasn’t on his team, it looks like the whistleblower was a CIA/Brennan stooge, and every time something comes up it’s claimed that Trump’s team at DOJ has to recuse themselves.
Trump’s team at any of these agencies represents a very thin layer at the top and every move to investigate any corruption has to pass-through charges of using his position for political gain while not doing so is used as proof that there is no corruption.
frosty (f27e97) — 11/1/2019 @ 10:29 am@146: So, as a reporter you would exclude any mention of the 30K emails that were deleted. I believe the WaPo report noted that, on the very last paragraph, but I guess you would go the step further of removing it altogether.
As to your question, a good faith way of answering is to turn it around so as to highlight the absurdity of it. But, since you didn’t pick up on that, the simple answer is that Trump’s folks have been able to mold the DOJ, in a way prior administrations have been permitted, only in the past ten months. Mueller was given two years to investigate Trump, and I don’t recall any fretting from you or others how long it was taking and that no indictments of Trump means no wrongdoing. So, I suggest giving as much time to Trump before crowing about Hillary’s exoneration.
Munroe (138863) — 11/1/2019 @ 10:34 am@149
What you wrote in bold is not correct. It was that Trump fired Comey because of the investigation of Russian hacking of the DNC server specifically.
It appears based on available information that the whistle-blower’s concerns were justified, at least enough that the current investigation is based on real events that are being corroborated by multiple witnesses. Given that, and that we’re not being asked to accept any testimony from the whistle blower I’m don’t see that his potential bias has any bearing.
Time123 (353edd) — 11/1/2019 @ 11:05 am”Given that, and that we’re not being asked to accept any testimony from the whistle blower I’m don’t see that his potential bias has any bearing.”
Time123 (353edd) — 11/1/2019 @ 11:05 am
His bias is only irrelevant if you assume had he heard about a similar scenario second hand in the Obama administration he would’ve flagged it.
I don’t think that’s a good assumption.
Munroe (138863) — 11/1/2019 @ 11:10 am@150, sorry, thought I was supposed to write a summary, not an entire article. You’re correct, the deleted emails should have been part of any full article. As should the fact that the private server was extremely careless.
Take all the time you want. But don’t expect others to take your “whatabout” seriously when after 3 years there’s nothing to show for it.
Either there’s no evidence of a crime or Trump, and those that work for him, aren’t sufficiently competent to find that evidence.
My guess is it’s a combination of both. There isn’t much evidence and Trump is a clown that surrounds himself with weaker men.
Time123 (353edd) — 11/1/2019 @ 11:12 am@152 I want a President to not abuse their power for personal or political gain. A system where everyone abuses their power holds no interest to me.
Time123 (353edd) — 11/1/2019 @ 11:16 amThe goal is less corruption. Not more corruption but this time for a different team.
Time123 (353edd) — 11/1/2019 @ 11:18 am@155: Dismissing corruption by a prior team as “not much evidence” fits into one those goals.
Munroe (138863) — 11/1/2019 @ 11:26 amIf there’s evidence to support a conviction they should indict.
Time123 (353edd) — 11/1/2019 @ 11:34 amBut you don’t have that, just chants at rallies and a funny hat.
Time123 (353edd) — 11/1/2019 @ 11:35 amlast one on emails. While it appears Hillary didn’t break the law with her private server I don’t think anyone doubts she was using a private server at least in part to avoid transparency on her email communication. I really wish that the laws had been updated to make that a criminal act going forward. But no one has even tried to do that. Would have been an easy sell
“Hillary got away with it but we’re tightening up the rules so that executive brand employees that do this in the future will be punished.”
It’s the sort of thing you’d expect from a competent administration that honestly wanted to reduce corruption.
Time123 (ae9d89) — 11/1/2019 @ 11:41 am”I really wish that the laws had been updated to make that a criminal act going forward.”
Time123 (ae9d89) — 11/1/2019 @ 11:41 am
Make what a criminal act specifically?
Mishandling classified information is already a crime and intent has no bearing on it. The wording was changed from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” for a reason — because that team used legal craft and chicanery instead of chants and funny hats. But, only the latter is worth getting worked up over.
Munroe (138863) — 11/1/2019 @ 11:52 am151. Time123 (353edd) — 11/1/2019 @ 11:05 am
We’re not being asked to accept any testimony from the whistleblower, (and one assertion in particular, that Trump wanted the then Prosecutor General, Yuriy Lutsenko, retained, was 100% wrong) but it still has it’s own relevance, perhaps more having to do with the integrity and impartiality of Adam Schiff than anything else. I’d certainly want to know why that allegation is in there, and where it came from and what it was supposed to mean.
Sammy Finkelman (b4516d) — 11/1/2019 @ 11:59 amPTw,
Your #137 misses my rather obvious sarcasm. Trump defenders have a bad habit of defending the most egregious things, and then wrapping themselves in the mantle of the “common man”.
Most “common” have better things to do than obsess over politics, and only tune in at random moments. The poli sci folks call that “rational ignorance”. Our society would be poorer, rather than richer if politics were part of everyone’s life at all times.
Appalled (1a17de) — 11/1/2019 @ 12:14 pm150. The rules were constantly being tightened and it was already a violation of law, although not where there was persona criminal responsibility. And Secretary of State John Kerry really tightened it up, so there was no need to then things up later. What HRC did never really was “allowed” by her time and certainly after some changes were made.
What she was investigated for was not for exclusively using super secure email (secure against subpoenas, future government investigations and FOIA requests too) but handling classified information properly, and that (besides anything she might have done very intentionally because, in essence, she had been bribed to do) was one thing she did not intend to violate. She probably never used the state.gov system to guard against a case where she or somebody else somebody slipped up and left some evidence in government records.
Almost everybody probably violated the rules, and they almost could not avoid doing that. The State Department had a (limited accesibility) classified email system and an unclassified email system. The server substituted for the State Department’s unclassified system. Nothing classified was supposed to be able to go on there. But this didn’t include material not marked classified but classified from birth.
She herself caused the audit and investigation by grandstanding and (after deleting anything that might possibly be incriminating or improper, by deleting everything that did not go or come from a state.gov address or the White House or did not mention Libya) requesting that all her emails be made public.
That caused a look-see to see if there was anything classified in them. And of course, things were found that classified and were not eligible for release yet. And would have been found with any other high level State Department employee’s unclassified email.
She actually did worse by having classified faxes sent to her apartment in DC where her trusted maid (who didn’t have a security clearance though) could and would handle them but that was not under review.
She also made the state.gov system less secure for a while in 2011 by disabling the spam filer until clintonemail.com could be secretly whitelisted.
Sammy Finkelman (976d9e) — 11/1/2019 @ 12:25 pm@160, so why hasn’t the Trump DOJ filed charges? They have all the evidence and if you’re right it’s appropriate. Serious question.
Time123 (f46167) — 11/1/2019 @ 12:45 pm”so why hasn’t the Trump DOJ filed charges? They have all the evidence and if you’re right it’s appropriate. Serious question.”
Time123 (f46167) — 11/1/2019 @ 12:45 pm
Maybe Trump isn’t the micro managing tyrant some people think he is. Or, maybe there are so many entrenched career employees that it’s near impossible. Or, as I mentioned before, the chances of getting a conviction from a beltway jury pool are nil especially when the investigation was already closed once and everybody in the world knows that.
Which of those do you like best?
Munroe (138863) — 11/1/2019 @ 1:03 pm@164 I might disagree with him about why but I think Comey was right when he said no prosecutor would indict. If one would we’d be right where we are now with charges that he abused his office to investigate a political rival.
You keep making this argument and it’s still disingenuous.
frosty (f27e97) — 11/1/2019 @ 1:04 pm@165 No one says Trumps a micromanager. Where did you get that one?
Time123 (f46167) — 11/1/2019 @ 1:20 pm“No one says Trumps a micromanager. Where did you get that one?”
Time123 (f46167) — 11/1/2019 @ 1:20 pm
So, that’s your answer?
Munroe (138863) — 11/1/2019 @ 1:22 pmI think it’s a combination of Trump being inept and there not being evidence to support what he’s been saying.
Time123 (d54166) — 11/1/2019 @ 2:01 pmFrosty, I have a response but don’t have time to type it out.
Time123 (d54166) — 11/1/2019 @ 2:02 pmAll the accusations against Trump are based on the idea he is a micromanager.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 11/1/2019 @ 2:03 pmSammy writes:..”All the accusations against Trump are based on the idea he is a micromanager.”
I could see why you might try claiming ignorance here because that surely is part of Trump’s problem. But he and his Administration keep refusing to tell the truth and/or cooperate so…. I don’t think that’s gonna fly.
Kelly said he’d be impeached if he hired a yes-man. Why? We all know why.
noel (f22371) — 11/1/2019 @ 2:40 pm172.
I think he knows it won’t fly, but he’s trying to force the Democrats to open the process and let him (or Republican committee members) call and (subpoena)witnesses and let him have a look at ALL they’ve collected.
He previously released maerial when he thought it would help, He did it with the Mueller investigation and he did it with the telephone call to Zelensky and he did it with helping with the release of the whistleblower complaint.
Only now he thinks the Schiff is running a kangaroo court, and people can see that..
He believes that what the House Intelligence Committee is doing under Chairman Adam Schiff won’t fly either.
He knows that, at a certain point, the process will open up. Maybe in the HSPCI (although the Republican are saying that what they’ve done till now needs to be thrown out) maybe in the House Judiciary Committee, and if all else fails, when it gets to the Senate. Actually (or Lindsey Graham) threatened the House woth just throwing out the case right away if they didn;’t havea more fair process.
Whether he, of his lawyers, know who to call, and what to ask, or whether he is willing to make himself look bad, is another question.
Sammy Finkelman (976d9e) — 11/2/2019 @ 5:28 pmHe hired a yes-man, who wasn’t quite exactly a yes man. He said yes a lot, but he didn’t leave it at that.
Trump’s holding up of the aid to Ukraine verged on illegality because he risked the money not being spent by September 30, and that would violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974
Pentagon lawyers told the White House, after they had been officially notified in July tthat the money wasn’t going out, that if the spending was not approved by August 6, it would be impossible to spend all the money by September 30, and Trump would stand in volation of the Impoundment Control Act (and that would be sufficient grounds for impeachment by the way although I doubt they said that)
Mick Mulvaney, wearing his hat as Director of the Office of Management and Budget said they were wrong. Mulvaney did not bring the problem to Trump’s attention. After all, he was a yes man. Instead he tried to devise another way, using Gordon D. Sondland, the Ambassador to the European Union, to get Trump to approve the aid. That was by getting Ukraine to satisfy Rudolph Giuliani. Giuliani would tell Trump the people in the Ukraianian government now were good gus and that would be it.
Mulvaney and Sondland didn’t tell the Ukrainians that aid was being withheld because that would be called to the attention of Congress by Ukraine and then Trump would find out he’d ordered something that he had no power to do. Mulvaney didn’t want Trump to find out there ever had been a problem caused by his decision not to send the aid.
Apparently, the president was authorized to withhold the aid in case of corruption (I’m not sure of this but Jonah Goldberg wrote that) so he discussed with Trump where did Trump see corruption that Ukraine wasn’t tackling properly.
The very gentle pressure on Ukraine to help Giuliani didn’t work, partially at least because Giuliani was talking nonsense.
On August 28, the Ukrainians found out, from a Politico article and also from an Adam Schiff announcement and I don’t know how they might be related that the aid was not stalled by bureacracy but was being withheld by presidential order. Sondland had to explain himself to a lot of people and now said that there was a quid pro quo – investigations for the aid, although he didn’t tell that to the Ukrainians.
This claim of a quid pro quo – investigations for the aid -was later brought to Trump’s attention by Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis) n September 1. Trump said he never said any such thing and wouldn’t do any suchthing and asked Senator Johnson who told him that. Johnson told him Sondland. Trump further said there was a bigger problem with Ukraine and it seems like he meant was that not even that would free the aid. And he said when Sondland was asked to ask Trump if there was a quid pro quo ofinvestiations to free the aid..
Trump said no. And what this meant was that nothing so simple as approving an investigation into Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election and into Burisma was going to do that.
So now, there were mutterings in Congress and they were thinking of what steps they should take when Trump saw he had a political problem and reversed himself and authorized the aid on September 11.
But, as the Pentagon had predicted, they couldn’t get all the aid out the door by September 30, when all the appropriations for Fiscal 2019 expired, and it had to be transferred and re-appropriated
Sammy Finkelman (976d9e) — 11/2/2019 @ 5:29 pmfor Fiscal 2020 in the continuing resolution.