Alexander Vindman

Trump’s Legal Team, Day One (PLUS: Footnote 565)

Published by Papa Giorgio

What follows are some strong arguments (I think) against the Democrats case against Donald J. Trump’s impeachment. However, FIRST and FOREMOST, here is the Trump Legal Team’s first day in the Senate defending Trump and responding to the House Managers for impeachment of a sitting President:

PJ-MEDIA has a must read for those interested, they explain each one succinctly… which I merely:

10. Ambassador Volker testified there was no effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens
9. Ambassador Taylor testified there was ‘no linkage’ between military aid and investigations
8. Ambassador Taylor testified Ukraine was unaware the lethal aid was being withheld
7. Ambassador Sondland testified Trump didn’t want anything from Ukraine, no quid pro quo
6. Ambassador Sondland testified he had no evidence of a quid pro quo other than his ‘own presumption’
5. Lt. Col. Vindman admitted Hunter Biden wasn’t qualified to be on Burisma’s board
4. Lt. Col. Vindman and Jennifer Williams both agreed Hunter’s position at Burisma had the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest
3. Ambassador Taylor basically admitted Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma ‘raises questions’
2. Marie Yovanovitch confirmed that there was concern in the Obama State Department about Hunter Biden’s conflict of interest at Burisma
1. George Kent said there were legit concerns about Hunter Biden, and Burisma should be investigated

ARI MELBER

RIGHT SCOOP sets this clip with the followin: “This is pretty great. Ari Melber actually told the MSNBC panel and their audience that the Democrats did not prove their case that Trump committed obstruction of Congress, and everyone flipped out.” By “flipped out,” they mean Lefties responses to this commentary, which you should see on RS’s site:

JOHN BARRASSO

This, however, was great… via GATEWAY PUNDIT who said “Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura opened the White House defense of President Donald Trump with video of Adam Schiff’s fake call and transcript he read during the House impeachment proceedings. Mike Purpura played the video immediately after taking the podium on Saturday. And there Schiff was lying his face off for the whole world to see….”

PATRICK PHILBIN

LEGAL INSURRECTION discusses the first day of the Trump teams response to the House managers. In this first day they challenged the credibility of Schiff, which the above commentary shows as well. LI says this: “It seemed that almost every time I turned on the TV, he was talking and talking and talking. Schiff is the person most behind the impeachment push and the biased House proceedings. We all know that. But the Republican trial team, particularly Patrick Philbin, skewered Schiff today with Schiff’s own prior lies and deceptions. Philbin addressed Schiff’s prior claim to have knowledge of evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia, evidence that not even Mueller found, showing Schiff’s opinion’s and claims to have evidence to be unreliable…”

JONATHAN TURLEY

Professor Jonathan Turley notes WELL a major misstep by the House Managers accusing the Senate (among others) of a cover-up… bombastic presentations in the House may be the norm. But not in the Senate:

FOOTNOTE 565

And HUGH HEWITT notes footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s legal briefing as evidence for Trump’s concern with Ukrainian interference with our 2016 election:

Video Description:

Hugh Hewitt reads footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s brief (PDF can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/rjh9dst). Hewitt then brings it up with Byron York when he was on to discuss his article: “As Trial Begins, the White House Strikes Back” (https://tinyurl.com/utv35mm). As an aside, here is the full extent of Russian interference with the 2016 election, and why (rightly or wrongly) Mueller indicted 13 Russians:

  • President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. (must read the entire article at LARRY ELDER’s SITE | see my post as well: FIONA HILL’S FALSE DILEMMA)

(Click To Enlarge)

(Text with Links)

President Trump also raised concerns about corruption. He first raised these concerns in connection with reports of Ukrainian actions in the 2016 presidential election. Numerous media outlets have reported that Ukrainian officials took steps to influence and interfere in the 2016 election to undermine then-candidate Trump, and three Senate committee chairmen are currently investigating this interference.565

565 See, e.g., Sharyl Attkisson, Timeline of Alleged Ukrainian-Democrat Meddling in 2016 Presidential Election, Epoch Times (Nov. 27, 2019); Andrew E. Kramer, Ukraine Court Rules Manafort Disclosure Caused Meddling’ in U.S. Election, N.Y. Times (Dec. 12, 2018); Kenneth P. Vogel & David Stem, Ukrainian Efforts to Sabotage Trump Backfire, Politico (Jan. 11, 2017); Roman Olearchyk, Ukraine’s Leaders Campaign Against ‘Pro-Putin ‘ Trump, Financial Times (Aug. 28, 2016), [Editor’s Note: the FT article is behind a paywall… see STONE COLD TRUTH to see article]; Press Release, Senators Seek Interviews on Reported Coordination Between Ukrainian Officials, DNC Consultant to Aid Clinton in 2016 Elections (Dec. 6, 2019).

ARTEM SYTNYK

This alongside this audio where you can hear former Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (put in place by Obama/Hillary State Department), Artem Sytnyk, admitting that he “helped” Hillary during the 2016 U.S. presidential election (see more at WAYNE DUPREE) — is devastating to the House Managers case!

Back-n-Forth from My Facebook Regarding Impeachment

Published by Papa Giorgio

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):

... C (a)

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…

... C (b)

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.