Is “UkraineGate” The Tipping Point? Is Anything?
UPDATE: As the Washington Post reports, President Trump now admits that he spoke about Vice President Joe Biden in a conversation with the President of Ukraine:
President Trump suggested Sunday that he mentioned former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter in a phone call with the leader of Ukraine, as Democrats ramp up their calls for accountability amid swirling questions about whether Trump sought to use his influence to seek reelection help from a foreign country.
In an exchange with reporters outside the White House before departing for events in Texas and Ohio, Trump was asked about his July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Washington Post reported last week that Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate a company with ties to Hunter Biden, and the call between Trump and Zelensky is the subject of an extraordinary whistleblower complaint.
“The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, was largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place, was largely the fact that we don’t want our people, like Vice President Biden and his son, creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine,” Trump told reporters. “And Ukraine, Ukraine’s got a lot of problems.”
So much for that “deep state attack” theory.
—–
President Donald Trump.
The New York Times brings us up to speed on the latest scandal to erupt from within the Trump administration–and this one could be the worst yet, an abuse of presidential power that should force even many of Donald Trump’s most intractable defenders to concede he’s gone too far:
In a July 25 phone call, Mr. Trump is said to have pressed the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate Mr. Biden’s younger son, Hunter, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. Mr. Trump has seized on an unsubstantiated theory that Mr. Biden was trying to protect the company from prosecution when he called for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor in 2016. Rudolph W. Giuliani, one of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers, has pushed the Ukrainian government to investigate the matter.
Why is this coming up now?
Because of an intelligence community whistle-blower who filed a complaint last month about the president’s actions. An inspector general deemed the complaint “credible” and “urgent” and forwarded it to the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, who has refused to share it with Congress. The issue was brought into the open when the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, sent an angry letter to Mr. Maguire on Sept. 10 demanding the complaint be shared with his panel.
The Times reports that subsequent to this July 25 phone call, the U.S. government blocked a shipment of arms to Ukraine intended to help the country defend itself from a Russian-backed insurgency in the eastern part of the country. Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, has been pressuring Ukrainian officials to go after Joe Biden’s son in separate meetings–delivering the message from both the official and political side of the Trump cabal.
Because the administration is refusing to share the whistleblower complaint, there’s a lot of details about this situation that haven’t been made public yet. There can be little question that manipulating a foreign country to take actions in support of Trump’s re-election campaign would be a very serious abuse of power, a grave offense for which impeachment is not only an option but arguably an urgent necessity. But in response to these new damning allegations, Republicans are once again circling the wagons around Trump:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday he hasn’t seen the Ukraine whistleblower complaint, but if former Vice President Joe Biden behaved inappropriately then “we need to know.”
Following reports that President Donald Trump pressured Ukrainian officials to investigate Biden’s son, Hunter Biden — which led to a whistleblower complaint and stalled congressional review — Pompeo joined many Trump allies in pivoting the conversation to discrediting the Democratic 2020 front-runner.
Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, considered one of the nation’s most indefatigable Trump defenders, went further:
“It looks to me like another deep state attack,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a top Trump booster, said Friday morning on Fox News. “We have seen this over and over and over in this administration from anonymous sources deep inside the bureaucracy.”
The Republican response to this latest scandal raises serious questions about whether anything Trump says or does at this point can be effectively challenged. With each new revelation of misdeeds by Trump that would bring down other presidencies, Republicans rush to legitimize and rationalize the situation–upgrading Trump’s unprecedented behavior to the “new normal.” After the extreme scrutiny of President Barack Obama’s administration by majority Republicans in Congress for the last six years of Obama’s presidency, the ability of Republicans to routinely brush off crimes by Trump that would have had them running to impeach Obama is absolutely devastating to their credibility.
But even that may not matter as long as the Republican base is submerged in pro-Trump propaganda, which it is to an historic extent as Fox News and the conservative mediasphere shovel whatever rationalizations they have to at the faithful in order to keep them cheering. For Democrats, these new allegations are up against the pressing clock of the 2020 elections, and it remains an open question whether impeachment would make political sense–rather than simply letting the voters throw Trump out of office in thirteen months as the polls show is highly likely.
Trump’s apparently total disregard for legal and ethical boundaries was predicted long before he became President. The difficulty of removing a sitting President, especially with the President’s party in control of the Senate and seemingly willing to run cover for anything he says and does, may well mean that no matter how bad it gets, the only remedy is the next election.
The lesson here for anyone who values the institutions and the standards that existed before Trump became President is that what happened in 2016, to Republicans and to Democrats, is something voters can never let happen again. Elections matter, and the damage from making the wrong choice is very hard to undo.
It may very well be the tipping point that sends Democrats into irrelevance…
Trump my be scandal after scandal, but right now House Democrats are demonstrating that they are not willing to hold their power. Trump has completely neutered the House's oversight authority, and unless Democrats are willing to dust off inherent contempt I fear that they will lose the confidence of voters. Civil contempt is dragging on too long and criminal contempt has been usurped by the Barr DoJ. The House, attempting to look like it's gathering evidence for impeachment, instead increasingly looks like a pack of powerless Don Quixote's banging up against the Trump Tower and breaking their lances.
That's a harsh indictment.
If Acting DNI McGuire walks in to Thursday's meeting without a copy of the whistleblower report and walks out without a contempt citation, Dems might as well hang it up. My preference is that he's escorted directly into a full floor vote on inherent contempt; failure to produce the report constitutes direct contempt, which does not (in judicial settings) require a separate hearing or trial.
but accurate.
No, it’s just the newest, lowest level of filth, scum, and corruption in the bottomless cesspool that is Trump . . .
. . . the bacteria at the lowest level, which is all that‘s left in the make-up of today’s Republican party, will continue in their sole remaining function of gobbling down his endless rivers of shit.
No collusion, no obstruction.
Well, maybe "collusion," but it's not illegal.
Well, it could be but no one did it.
And no one should no testify.
But if they do, pardon or commutation, November 11, 2020.
No obstruction
Even if there was a President cannot be indicted.
Obama and Clinton did it too.
Deep state argle bargle.
Besides, it's not an existential threat so no one needs to do anything about it.
Why 11 November? The election is on the 8th. Waiting to do it on Veterans' Day as an even bigger "bite me" to the rest of the country?
CNN: "Schiff: Impeachment may be 'only remedy' to Trump keeping whistleblower complaint and Ukraine call private"
I think Rep. Schiff is a cautious legislator, positioning himself for leadership when the current gerontocracy disperses. He is a supporter of Pelosi and has been one of the 95 or so Democrats not publicly declaring support for the impeachment inquiry. If he calls this a "profound violation," it is more than an idle quote.
Impeachment by the House all but guarantees Trump's re-election.
Progressives just don't seem cognizant of the power of the far right wing dark PAC money.
Careful, CHB. You're talking sense again. The true believers want to impeach Trump, fail to convict in the Senate, then see him re-elected because that will prove the system is corrupt and we should have nominated Bernie!
Cue "Ride of Vakyries" and "March of the Oily Boyz."
for those of you who have never heard March of the Oily Boyz, the tune is "Scotland the Brave" with lyrics by Woody Guthrie explaining that private property is no damn good. Bagpipes are optional.
Speaking of Woody Guthrie I had the occasion to attend an illustrated talk about how he changed hearts and minds during his years in Los Angeles.
Fascinating history of his childhood in Oklahoma, his journey to Los Angeles, the Hoovervilles in both downtown LA and the central valley, and how the Great Depression radicalized his politics.
Woody, broke soon after he arrived and not knowing what was next for him got a Julius Rosenwald fellowship grant, just enough money to keep him going (he was the only white guy to get one). It was a truly fascinating event, complete with an historian/guitarist who played a few of Woody's songs that were never released. The family has almost 1,000 more in a vault that will be released over time.
We, the trio I sing with, have taken to covering Woodys' song " Deportee" at our shows. It is timely…still today.
Failure to pursue the Constitutional remedy for a criminal President guarantees that he and his minions will continue to commit crimes. Why would they stop?
”Moderate Dems” and reformed Republicans just don’t seem cognizant of the power of right wing and foreign money.
He will keep doing it once he is acquitted in the Senate.
There isn’t a mandate to refer to the Senate- only to investigate, and if warranted, vote on articles of impeachment in the House,
Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe ( and others) are pushing the House-only-no-Senate-referral scenario. It makes sense- why give Moscow Mitch the opportunity to decline to try Trump’s case? Let it hang over Trump in 2020, as the mere threat of impeachment forced Nixon’s resignation.
Nixon's resignation brought Gerald Ford to the presidency. He was super popular until he pardoned Nixon and still nearly won the election. Your dream scenario — a Trump resignation — bring the politically skillful Mike Pence to the presidency instead of Stmblebum. And he could serve for 8 more years.
Put that in your non-existent "mandate" and smoke it.
Not to mention elevating Karen "Aunt Lydia" Pence to First Lady. Remember, she is the real brain in that marriage.
Uhh, they will stop when they are voted out of office, which is also when they lose their immunity from prosecution. Please cite the clause of the Constitution requiring the Democrats to aid Trump the way Gingrich helped Clinton.
United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4
And since you you bring up Gerald Ford,
You have failed again. The language indisputably gives the power to the house to act– or not act — as it sees fit. You have maintained the house has a mandate to act.
You are wrong. There is no mandate to commit political malpractice and re-elect Trump just because a few uber left members of Congress are too dumb to know the difference between the power to do something and the requirement to do so.
So, you are, indisputably, wrong again.
This is getting old.
A mandate only confers authority, V. It is not a requirement and leaves action as an option.
Did someone suggest otherwise?
Just a little confused here….
Look up the word mandate, duke. Yes, it's a requirement. OK, it's also the name of a dating magazine for gay men, but that's not the meaning here.
Mandate: an official order or commission to do something.
Look at the second one , V.
It's much simpler just to note that M.J. Screwed up again.
From a Democrat decidedly not of the left.
I'm all for censure since the House could do it alone. With censure, Pelosi never gives McConnell the chance to acquit Trump.
Censure and move on is indeed the best course for Stinky Boy, as it would have been for Clinton. But the looney-tune left would have a cow, screaming that the system was rigged.
Impeachment by the House is so rare, so ahistorical, that ANY prediction of consequences coming from action now is a pure guess.
The Senate hearings of 1973 showed there was a "third rate burglary" with inept operatives and an effort to cover up the full dimensions of responsibility. At the request of the special prosecutor, in Feb. 1974, there was a suspension of public hearings and no public report until June. Attitudes of the public are described on the Senate website:
Several of those factors seem unlikely in this era of partisanship. It was the Special Prosecutor's efforts, eventually supported by the Supreme Court, which forced the release of the tapes. Revelations from them then were incorporated into the House Committee's impeachment resolution. Before there could be a debate by the whole House or a vote to impeach, Nixon resigned.
My speculation — we don't know what the outcome would be until the House committee holds hearings, gets (or doesn't get) testimony and documents, crafts a resolution and presents it to the House. By then, the public attitudes will be more fully formed. If the charges are not enough to move public opinion to a majority favoring impeachment, and the charges are not enough to shake at least 15-20 Republicans loose from their Trump devotion, the House can determine what to do — censure, impeach and not refer to the Senate, or impeach and push it to the Senate for trial.
What set of data supports that supposition, CHB? What poll supports the notion that impeachment will guarantee the ODs' re-election?
What poll proves that Trump's inevitable victory in the Senate — All Republicans except possibly Romney and Collins plus Mancin — would hurt his re-election?
Don't waste your time. No legitimate survey handles way-out hypotheticals.
Thank you for making my point.😘
Somebody has to make your points!
I would not include Collins in that list after her brain dead defense of Brett Kavanaugh. I would place Lisa Murkowski on that list.
Unfortunately, Manchin will vote to acquit.
And Trump will scream about being exonerated on a bipartisan Senate vote.
If that money has power, it will be used regardless of the facts on the ground – but maybe less so if the product is obviously damaged.
But the beginning should IMHO not be impeachment, but rather the retaking of House authority. So long as every Trump ally or even reluctant partner sees no consequence for snubbing the House and obeying Trump's "requests", any investigation will at best turn up the mealy-mouthed bits of the sort that we got from Lewendowski – easy to dismiss as witch hunting or petty. Contempt needs a penalty, and IMHO a swift one.
Your opinion is not really humble. But in this case, it is wise.
duplicate
If Yammie -pie thought the U.N. Conference would be a respite from his problems, well, not so much:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/462596-five-things-to-watch-as-trump-heads-to-un?userid=289091
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/462607-trump-defends-raising-corruption-on-call-with-ukraine-leader?userid=289091