Trump whistleblower complaint

[_Res Ipsa]

Is Pelosi forcing his hand?

Is he forcing hers to make her look like a fool tomorrow--much ado about nothing?

The phone call transcript is one piece of the evidence. By admitting that he asked the Ukranian president to investigate Biden, Trump made reading the transcript largely unnecessary. It's difficult to underestimate Trump, but I certainly don't expect the transcript to say "We're withholding the military aid we promised you until you open an investigation into Joe Biden, my strongest rival for re-election." So, the absence of a threat or a quid pro quo in the transcript will not mean much ado about nothing.

If I try and put together all the facts I've been reading about this, I get something like this:

Biden's kid took a job with a Ukraine company.
There was evidence of massive corruption within Ukraine.
The guy who owned the company Biden's kid worked for was suspected of being corrupt.
A Ukrainian prosecutor was tasked with investigating and prosecuting the corruption, including the company owner.
He didn't do it.
The U.S. and other nations pressured Ukraine to investigate and prosecute the corruption.
The U.S. government sent Biden to try and force Ukraine to fire the recalcitrant prosecutor so the investigations could proceed.

Trump is elected president.
Ukraine initially cooperates with Mueller's investigation.
The Trump administration promises Ukraine military aid.
Ukraine stops cooperating with Mueller.
Trump takes no steps to investigate Biden until polling shows Biden is a serious threat to his reelection.
Trump's personal lawyer makes several trips to the Ukraine to try and persuade the new Ukrainian president to investigate Biden. He fails.
The Russian military begins to advance in the Ukraine, eventually forcing the Ukrainian military to withdraw in several locations.
Trump orders military aid to Ukraine to be suspended
Trump speaks to Ukrainian president, asking him several times to start investigating Biden.
Whistleblower files complaint.
The Inspector General finds the complaint credible and urgent.
Contrary to law, the Director of National Intelligence prevents the IG report from being sent to the Congressional Intelligence committees.
The existence of the whistleblower complaint and the failure to notify the Congressional intelligence committees is made public.
News reports circulate that the complaint has to do with Trump and Ukraine.
The Trump administration releases the military aid to Ukraine.
The president's private lawyer says that he actually took all those trips to Ukraine at the direction of the State Department.

Some of those facts could very well be wrong, as news reports aren't always accurate. But, at a minimum, there is pretty solid evidence that the Trump administration had no interest in Biden's dealings with Ukraine during the Obama administration until it became clear that Biden was a significant threat to Trump's reelection. The President sent his private lawyer to Ukraine to try and whip up a non-existent scandal against his major political threat.

Just that gives grounds for impeachment. Trump fraudulently tried to get a foreign power to manufacture a non-existent scandal to help him get re-elected. We don't need the transcript for that.

But there's more. Trump admitted that he used the office of the presidency to ask the president of another country to manufacture a non-existant scandal against his primary political revival.

That's much stronger grounds for impeachment. We don't need the transcript for that.

But there's more. Trump may have suspended promised military aid to Ukraine, at a time when the Russians were putting military pressure on Ukraine, to pressure the Ukraine President to manufacture the non-scandal.

If we hadn't become somewhat numb to Trump's outrageous behavior over the last two years, this would guarantee impeachment and removal. We don't need the transcript for this, either.

But there's more. If the State Department sent the president's private lawyer to the Ukraine as some kind of envoy from the State Department to pressure the Ukrainian President to manufacture a non-existent scandal, then we're not just looking at impeachable behavior by Trump. We're looking at a conspiracy to use the governmental power of the United States to pressure a foreign government into making stuff up to help Trump get re-elected. That's now a minimum of Trump and Pompeo that would be looking at an impeachment. Plus, perhaps, whoever was involved with putting a hold on military aid to the Ukraine.

We don't need the transcript for any of this.

And there's still more. Hiding the IG's report from the Congressional Intelligence committees not only violates the law, it's the kind of obstruction of justice that itself merits impeachment. Nixon was charged with ordering the CIA to interfere with the FBI's Watergate investigation. Ordering the IG to break the law in this case is arguable worse, because it prevents a co-ordinate branch of government from doing its job.

That widens the conspiracy to the Department of Justice, depending on who gave the order to break the law. And we don't need the transcript for that.

Finally, I suspect someone will get around to investigating why the Ukraine withdrew its cooperation with Mueller and whether that had anything to do with the promise of military aid.

Trump is releasing the transcript because (1) he's already admitted to asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Biden. (2) the transcript (not surprisingly) doesn't talk about any quid pro quo. (3) The transcript, on its own, is probably the least harmful of the existing evidence that none of us have seen (the whistleblower complaint and the IG's report). He'll use it to try and claim that the transcript exonerates him, but the guy that's been bellowing "no collusion" for two years has already admitted active attempts to collude with a foreign power to affect the results of the 2020 elections. The never say die Trumpers will buy it, but no one else.

If anyone's hand is being forced, it's Pelosi's. And her hand was forced by her membership.

[_Jersey Girl]

RI could the transcript be redacted and if so, how might that damage a case against Trump? Can anyone demand a non-redacted copy of the transcript?

[_EAllusion]

RI could the transcript be redacted and if so, how might that damage a case against Trump? Can anyone demand a non-redacted copy of the transcript?

I doubt the transcript will be redacted. If there were damning items in it beyond what is already known, the Trump admin likely would be fighting its release like it is fighting the release of other information. From the available information, the tactic appears to be to use the transcript lacking an explicitly spelled out attempt to pressure Ukraine to spin it as an exoneration while deflecting and distracting from the current body of evidence of improper behavior already in public and whatever the is contained in the whistleblower's complaint and the attempts to prevent it from getting to Congress.

Given how brazen and incompetent the Trump admin is at lying, though, it's possible the transcript isn't presented in a forthright manner. This is the same administration that flat out lied about the Mueller report to preemptively spin coverage of it and got some success from their effort.

[_ajax18]

Aren't presidents supposed to root out corruption in countries which are receiving US tax dollars. I'd want to make sure other countries are on our side before giving them money.

Trump will be impeached in the Democrat House and exonerated in the Republican Senate. Honestly I'm surprised Obama wasn't impeached when the Republicans took control of the House and the Senate. Whoever is the next president will more than likely be impeached if his party doesn't control congress. It's going to become a new political tactic. Which makes me wonder what the Democrats achieve by impeaching Trump. Pence will enforce the border and cut social welfare spending just as much as Trump.

[_Brackite]

Aren't presidents supposed to root out corruption in countries which are receiving US tax dollars. I'd want to make sure other countries are on our side before giving them money.

Trump changes story on key scandal detail for the 3rd time in 3 days

On Sunday, a reporter asked Donald Trump to explain his administration delaying military aid to Ukraine in July. "I didn't delay anything," the president replied.

A day later, the Republican's story changed a bit. Trump told reporters, "We want to make sure that country is honest. It's very important to talk about corruption. If you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?"

Today, about 48 hours after saying he "didn't delay anything," the American president said he did delay aid to Ukraine -- not specifically because of corruption concerns, but because of his interest in spreading international financial burdens.

"As far as withholding funds, those funds were paid," Trump said. "They were fully paid. But my complaint has always been -- and I'd withhold again, and I'll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine, because they're not doing it."

"Very important, I want other countries to put up money," he added. "I think it's unfair that we put up the money. Then other people call me. They said, 'Oh, let it go.' And I let it go. But we paid the money, the money was paid."

He said he wants Germany, France and other nations to contribute more funds. "And that's been my complaint from the beginning," he said.

So to recap, Trump said he didn't delay the aid to the country whose help he sought for his re-election campaign. Then he changed gears, expressing concern about Ukrainian corruption. Then the president changed gears again, wondering why other countries weren't providing more assistance to the country he suspects of corruption.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... ime-3-days

Pence will enforce the border and cut social welfare spending just as much as Trump.

I haven't heard that much about Trump cutting social welfare spending. The National debt has increased over $2.5 trillion since Trump became President.

Budget deficit smashes $1 trillion mark, the highest in seven years

The U.S. government's red ink for fiscal 2019 swelled past the $1 trillion mark in August, the first time that level has been eclipsed in seven years, the Treasury Department reported Thursday.

The total shortfall rose to nearly $1.07 trillion, thanks to a difference between revenue and expenses of more than $214.1 billion in August. The government last saw that large of a fiscal deficit in 2012, when the gap was nearly $1.1 trillion.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/12/budget- ... years.html

[_Res Ipsa]

RI could the transcript be redacted and if so, how might that damage a case against Trump? Can anyone demand a non-redacted copy of the transcript?

He could do anything he wants, including changing his mind and not releasing the transcript at all. He has no obligation to release it at all at this point, so I don’t think voluntarily releasing a redacted transcript would itself be an impeachable offense. Whichever committee ends up running this thing will undoubtably subpoena the tape of the call, so the transcript won’t be that important—unless a doctored or inaccurate transcript gets released. I have trouble believing that the White House would try that, but we’re living in an America where the President doctors weather maps with Sharpies.

[_Res Ipsa]

Aren't presidents supposed to root out corruption in countries which are receiving US tax dollars. I'd want to make sure other countries are on our side before giving them money.

Trump will be impeached in the Democrat House and exonerated in the Republican Senate. Honestly I'm surprised Obama wasn't impeached when the Republicans took control of the House and the Senate. Whoever is the next president will more than likely be impeached if his party doesn't control congress. It's going to become a new political tactic. Which makes me wonder what the Democrats achieve by impeaching Trump. Pence will enforce the border and cut social welfare spending just as much as Trump.

The technical term for this kind of post is “whistling past the graveyard”.

Your hero is in serious trouble, and I wouldn’t count on Senate Republicans being willing to go down with the ship. If there is strong evidence of extortion, I think you’ll see lots of jumping rats.

[_ajax18]

Your hero is in serious trouble, and I wouldn’t count on Senate Republicans being willing to go down with the ship. If there is strong evidence of extortion, I think you’ll see lots of jumping rats.

I guess it would be a blow to the Republican party to lose Trump. I'm confident in the job Pence would do but I think the Democrats understand better than Republicans that Trump was the only candidate who could have broken the blue wall in an election. Perhaps that's why they're fighting so hard to get rid of him. It's certainly not because they like Mike Pence's politics better.

[_EAllusion]

Here's a significant late evening update:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/impeachme ... mear-biden

What all these stories hint at is there are people with information in the Trump orbit willing to talk.

[_honorentheos]

Your hero is in serious trouble, and I wouldn’t count on Senate Republicans being willing to go down with the ship. If there is strong evidence of extortion, I think you’ll see lots of jumping rats.

I guess it would be a blow to the Republican party to lose Trump. I'm confident in the job Pence would do but I think the Democrats understand better than Republicans that Trump was the only candidate who could have broken the blue wall in an election. Perhaps that's why they're fighting so hard to get rid of him. It's certainly not because they like Mike Pence's politics better.

Hey ajax,

I think you're missing the other possibility - that this isn't inherently partisan even if it can't help being immersed in politics. At heart is a question that transcends party politics and comes down to whether or not the executive branch can be held accountable to Congress, and by extension to the boundaries of law? Or is the executive essentially above the law?

The calculus of whether or not Pence would continue to enact the same policies as Trump misses the question of if Pence would flagrantly act in ways that challenge the system and defy Congress at every turn? Whatever faults the man may have, being willing to burn the Constitution if it benefits him doesn't appear to be one of them.