Some conversation arose from the following post on my Facebook — which is a short excerpt and then link to this article:
If you’re like me and getting into conversations with people about the Trump impeachment, then you need a short, simple summary of the facts.
Quote:
Essentially the Democrats are accusing Trump of shaking down Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky by withholding aid and demanding announcement of investigations, including one involving Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.
To this, the central charge in the articles of impeachment, Rep. Jim Jordan and others presented four specific facts. First, both Trump and Zelensky say there was no pressure applied. Second, the transcript does not indicate Trump making any demands or setting any conditions. Third, Ukraine was not aware that the aid was delayed. And fourth, aid flowed without any announcement of investigations. Taken together, these four defenses have more than enough weight to crush the Democrats’ case, but lets look at them one by one.
Here are some conversations via the above with JIM G. First up, the proclivity of people to offer psychoanalyses about other peoples position based on the interpreter’s (JIM G.) dislike of a person:
JIM G.
Of course Zelensky says their was no pressure. He knows Trump will make him pay dearly if he says anything else. Ukraine desperately needs our support and Trump has already revealed his willingness to withhold that support.
SEAN G.
Trump didn’t reveal anything of the sort. Zelenski got javelins before and after the phone call. I guess the real question is is why did Democrats not help the Ukraine?
JIM G.
first of all, it’s “Ukraine,” not “the Ukraine” just like it is “Canada,” not “the Canada.”
As for why Democrats did not help, I don’t know. But that does not excuse Trump’s attempted shakedown.
[….]
Jordan’s analysis of the so called “transcript” is absurd. It’s like he holds up a black piece of paper and says, “Look, it’s white!”
SEAN G.
if the paper being held up is “black” as you say. Why didn’t the Democrats include an impeachment article saying it was black?
Let me explain this a bit. I have already shared this with JIM, but I want to remind my audience as well with an excerpt from a previous convo also on Facebook:
- So two articles of impeachment have been put forward. Bribery was what CNN says was the Crux of the case a few weeks ago. However, remember all the terms changed over time: quid pro quo, to extortion, to bribery, to obstruction of justice. None of these are part of the impeachment articles. One impeachment article is “obstruction of Congress” (read here Democrats). What a joke! I think a bulk of the American voters see through this sham/witch Hunt.
This is what I am referring to.
JIM G.
Yes, Ukraine was aware that the aid was delayed.
Aid only flowed after Trump knew he was caught.
SEAN G.
[quote]
One of the few facts in all of this where there is some debate is when exactly Ukraine became aware that the military aid had been delayed. But all versions place it very late in the timeline of events, certainly long after the July 25 phone call with Zelensky. That’s like trying to blackmail someone with scandalous photos of them without letting them know you have any scandalous photos of them. It’s impossible.
The delay of the aid was part of a wider set of concerns regarding how much Ukraine could be trusted with the money. Throughout the late summer and fall, through a set of meetings and phone calls with American officials Zelensky proved to Trump that he could be trusted. That is what Trump wanted to know and why he released the aid without any announcement of investigations.
And that final fact, that the aid was released without the announcements Democrats claim were the condition to release them, really puts the period on the sentence. Democrats claim the aid was only released on September 11 because the White House became aware of the whistleblower report. But this ignores the fact the aid had to release by September 30, and doing so is a two-week process.
So essentially, aid was released on or about the deadline set to release it. That is a much more plausible explanation for the timing than some whistleblower report spooking Trump. Is it possible Trump was angry at yet again being undermined by people in the federal government for exercising his legitimate powers? Sure. But there is no evidence to suggest that Trump was ever planning to ultimately kill the aid.
(again, THE FEDERALIST)
[un-quote]
The aid was set to be released at a certain time, and it was… Not because “Trump thought he was caught.” Dumb.
I then posted this as a reminder that there is no quid-pro-quo in the call. No bribery, or anything like it:
Hugh Hewitt and Generalissimo Duane read the phone call Trump had with the Ukrainian President. One debunked position people attribute to the call was that President Trump used military aid as a barganing chip to get what he wanted from Ukraine. However, the far Left magazine, THE NATION, notes this about the issue:
- Democratic leaders and media pundits are convinced that Trump extorted Ukraine by delaying military aid to compel an investigation into Biden. Their theory may prove correct, but the available evidence does not, as of now, make for a strong case. Trump had held up military aid to Ukraine by the time of his call with Zelensky, but if the public transcript is accurate, it did not come up during their conversation. According to The New York Times, Zelensky’s government did not learn that the military aid was frozen until more than one month later. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who met with Zelensky in early September, said that the Ukrainian president “did not make any connection between the aid that had been cut off and the requests that he was getting from [Trump attorney Rudy] Giuliani.” It will be difficult to prove extortion if Trump’s purported target was unaware.
Here is where I have had a response in my quiver for two-months that in the following convo I FINALLY got to use (and yes, like a true nerd I was excited when I saw JIM’S response):
JIM G.
It’s a summary edited by the White House. It’s not a transcript.
I will add to the conversation below so the reader here has a fuller picture of the issue to help them respond to family/friends/co-workers/etc:
SEAN G.
It is [a transcript]. In fact, TIN BOY Vindman said a single word was missing [from the transcript that he tried to have reinserted], and it didn’t change the meaning of the transcript.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing that the omission of the word “Burisma” — the Ukrainian natural gas firm that hired Hunter Biden to serve in a lucrative role on the board — in the transcript of President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not “significant,” despite some prior controversy over the missing references.
(video linked in original conversation directly below)
It is worse than that though. GATEWAY PUNDIT notes the total lack of conspiracy theories proffered by the Left and #NeverTrumpers.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council aide, was one of three people on the infamous July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Democrats allege that Trump demanded Zelensky investigate the business dealings of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, with Ukrainian power company Burisma, then omitted the word from a transcript of the call, which they say White House then hid in a secure server.
Not so, Vindman said.
Vindman testified under oath in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing before the House Intelligence Committee that the omission of the word “Burisma” was not “significant.”
He attributed the omission “to the fact that this transcript being produced may have not caught the word Burisma.”
“It was in the transcript that was released as ‘the company,’ which is accurate,” Vindman testified. “It’s not a significant omission,” he said, later adding: “I didn’t see that as nefarious.” Vindman added that it was “informed speculation that the folks that produce these transcripts do the best they can, and they just didn’t catch the word.”
He also shot down conspiracy theories that the White House moved the call transcript to a secure server to keep it from Democrats.
Again, not so, Vindman said.
Vindman testified Tuesday that storing the transcript in a secure server was not unusual.
“Why would it be put on a separate secure system?” Vindman was asked.
“This is definitely not unprecedented,” he said. “At times, if you want to limit access to a smaller group of folks you put it on the secure system to insure that a smaller group of people with access to the secure system have it.”
BaBoom! Every key witness shot down major MSM and Democrat conspiracy stories.
…CONTINUING WITH OUR EXCHANGE…
JIM G.
the call was approximately 30 minutes. The “transcript” covers roughly 10 minutes.
Here it is… the Pièce De Résistance
SEAN G.
almost 15-minutes. The translators had to translate… [which] essentially doubles the time
Those were the best parts from that convo.