10 votes

Assessing the Trump team’s 6-point impeachment defense

2 comments

  1. [2]
    psi
    Link
    To summarize, Trump’s lawyers argued before the Senate: “The transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. The paused security...

    To summarize, Trump’s lawyers argued before the Senate:

    1. “The transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. The paused security assistance funds aren’t even mentioned on the call.”

    2. “President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have repeatedly said that there was no quid pro quo and no pressure on them to review anything.”

    3. “President Zelensky and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not even know — did not even know the security assistance was paused until the end of August. Over a month after the July 25th call.”

    4. “Not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting or anything else.”

    5. The security assistance flowed on Sept. 11, and a presidential meeting took place on Sept. 25 without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations.

    6. The Democrats’ blind drive to impeach the president does not and cannot change the fact, as attested to by the Democrats own witnesses, that President Trump has been a better friend and stronger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor.

    Of course, the article pushes back against each of these points. However, the most complete rebuttal comes from a newly published (1/26) bombshell report in The New York Times. Evidently the Times has obtained a copy of Bolton’s upcoming book The Room Where It Happened (currently being delayed by the White House’s pre-publication clearance process), which alleges (among other things):

    1. Trump told Bolton [his national security advisor] to freeze the nearly $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine until Ukraine agreed to investigate the Bidens.

    2. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo believed that allegations of corruption against Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch were unfounded and that Giuliani was using her ouster to help his clients.

    The first point essentially undercuts the entirety of the President’s defense. The second point, perhaps unsurprisingly by this point, actually accuses Giuliani of doing exactly what he accused the Bidens of doing. But unlike the Bidens, recent indictments against Giuliani‘s associates suggest there is actually wrongdoing on his behalf.

    15 votes
    1. envy
      Link Parent
      Democrats asked Bolton to testify. Bolton wanted the supreme court to rule on Trump's claim of executive privilege vs the house's ability to subpoena. The democrats decided to move forward with...

      Democrats asked Bolton to testify. Bolton wanted the supreme court to rule on Trump's claim of executive privilege vs the house's ability to subpoena. The democrats decided to move forward with impeachment quickly, presumably as they know this will rile up the republican base if it continues through into the election cycle.

      Bolton said he was willing to testify to the Senate, if subpoenaed. What's up with that? The chief justice of the supreme court (Roberts) is presiding over the senate trial.

      Democrats are still unlikely to subpoena Bolton in the house, proving yet again they insist on taking a principled stand against a side that has no principals when it comes to winning. “The onus is clearly on the Senate to call a relevant and willing witness before they vote”. As if.

      8 votes