An Inconvenient Transcript
The View from the Middle
A week is a lifetime in politics, especially in today’s frenzied news cycle. When I left for Indiana last week, the mainstream media was absolutely hysterical about a whistleblower report concerning a phone call between President Trump and Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky. They were claiming that President Trump made a clear threat to withhold funding from Ukraine in order to force Zelensky to do his bidding. The media was delirious as they demanded that President Trump release the transcript of that call, which they were absolutely sure he would not do. Then, when Trump refused to release the transcript, they could also accuse him of stonewalling or maybe even obstruction of justice. They were giddy that they had put Trump into a “no-win” situation. Then, the inconceivable occurred. Trump released the transcript. And the Dems and the media collectively said, “crap!”
Don’t take anyone’s word for what’s in the transcript (especially Adam “full of” Schiff). It’s only four pages long and I’ll put a link to the transcript at the end of this post that you can copy and paste into your browser. Read it for yourself.
After the transcript of the call was released, the media and the Dems began to scramble. The transcript revealed that what they had said about Trump’s conversation with Zelensky was not even close to accurate. The Washington Post, hardly a right-wing publication, published seven take-aways from the transcript, and #1 was that, “It mentions no explicit quid pro quo”. Wow, that should have been a bombshell story in and of itself. Why would they have made that claim without even seeing the transcript of the call? Oh yah! They never expected President Trump to be so transparent as to release the transcript.
After trying to redefine “quid pro quo” to mean “ask for a favor” they had to actually make up things that weren’t in the transcript. This is where Adam “full of” Schiff made a mockery of himself and of the House of Representatives. He actually read into the Congressional record his personal interpretation of the call without even referencing those pesky facts that are actually in the transcript. For example, this is what “full of” Schiff suggests Trump was telling Zelensky, “I’m only going to tell you seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent. Understand? Lots of it, on this and on that.” “Full of” Schiff then suggests that the President ended the call by telling Zelensky, “by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.”
“Full of” Schiff’s only problem is…none of that was in the transcript at all. Maybe he was hearing voices or maybe he confused the transcript with a Tom Clancy novel he was reading, but this is not even close to what President Trump said. Even CNN said, “Here’s where Schiff veered quite a distance from what the transcript says.” When CNN says he “veered quite a distance” that means that Adam “full of” Schiff was just lying and counting on his allies in the media to only report his delusional ramblings and not the actual content of the transcript. He truly is a disgrace.
And while all of this exaggeration and complete fabrication was going on, some actual journalists were releasing a video of Joe Biden bragging about doing exactly what the Dems and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) were accusing President Trump of doing. In January of 2018, Joe boasted that he extorted the then President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, back in 2016 by threatening to withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine. His exact words were, “We’re not going to give you the billion dollars…I’m leaving here in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.” Now that is a quid pro quo (which in Latin means “this for that”) if I’ve ever heard one. But Joe couldn’t just leave it there, he had to make sure that everyone knew that his extortion threat paid off. Finally, he added, “Well, son of a bitch. He (the prosecutor) got fired.”
At this point, Joe should have added that the prosecutor that he was so determined to get fired was investigating a company named Burisma Holdings where his son, Hunter, served on the Board of Directors. An interesting factoid to leave out, don’t you think?
I have told you many times that this is a tactic that the Dems use very often, and that is to accuse others of doing exactly what they are doing. It’s a version of the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels’ “big lie”. Their behavior is so outrageously hypocritical, they are hoping that no one could believe they would dare try it. Here’s the link to the transcript. Don’t trust the lamestream media to give you an accurate portrayal of what is in it. Read it for yourself.
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/25/764052120/read-transcript-of-president-trumps-call-with-ukraine-s-leader
A couple of thoughts. First, the prosecutor that Biden wanted fired was one the entire West wanted fired, (https://tinyurl.com/yyk8y3pb) precisely because he wasn't investigating. Also check out the book Moneyland by Oliver Burroughs: https://tinyurl.com/y39tupbq There's a chapter on Ukraine, and just how the former president and Lutsenko looted the country. Or see: https://tinyurl.com/y3vuo7fn
ReplyDeleteOf course Hunter Biden got the job because of his proximity to power. But Joe Biden (who was simply stating formal US policy) statements regarding the prosecutor made it MORE likely Burisma would get investigated, not less. And really, do Republicans want to go down the road of disparaging politicians because their children are profiting off their parents' names? I would bet on sober reflection they would not.
As to the "transcript," it's not actually a transcript. It's a memo. Anyone who believes any politician will give you the full take on something potentially damning to them without seeing an actual transcript or having them sworn under oath is taking a big leap. If they would, I have a gift certificate to Trump University to sell them. Several in fact. Some personally signed by John Barron.
However one reads the memo, and it will naturally be colored by your political leanings, surely we can all agree that it was inappropriate. And it's the latest in a long string of inappropriate things this President has done with the office. In short, the President of the United States has no business asking "favors" of a country that desperately needs our support, when those "favors" involve working with his personal attorney to dig up dirt on his opponents' families. Especially when that country is facing a constant and active threat from Russia, a superpower that is our declared enemy (however much the President may not want to admit it).
It would be one thing if our President had shown a commitment to fighting corruption elsewhere (he hasn't, even in his own cabinet). But to literally say his chief political rival's name in the discussion is, at the very minimum, inappropriate. And we will see if he usurped Congress' power of the purse to withhold the appropriated funds to Ukraine to make that happen - if he does that then there's really no excusing it. And of course we'll get to the bottom of whether it was overclassified or not. At this time, though, if you're attacking the process and not at least a little troubled by the memo and want to know more, then you trust this President, and any President, far more than I ever will.
Now, maybe you see them all as minor, and the other side as simply blowing it out of proportion. It's a little hard to take complaints about proportion seriously from Republicans though after 8 years of Benghazi (which the House minority leader admitted was simply to damage Hillary in the polls), 8 years of complaining about everything from Obama wearing a tan suit to saluting with a coffee cup, and accusing him of being born in Kenya (I believe Donald even said he had actual evidence of this at one time).
By all means, everyone should read this for themselves. When you're done if you're not bothered, ask yourself what if Obama had done it? If you can't conclude that at a minimum it's a basis for Congress to exercise its proper constitutional function and investigate it, then perhaps you have more trust in Presidents than I do. It may be inconvenient for Congress that the Executive, through the DOJ sometimes investigates and prosecutes members of Congress, but that's the role our Constitution gives it. Likewise, the President may not like being investigated by Congress, but that's the role the Constitution gives it. And neither may like having laws they favor declared unconstitutional, but that's the check on both of them the federal judiciary has. One's fealty should be to the Constitution, not a party or politician.
By the way, if people can agree on nothing else, can we all agree that Donald Trump is the worst at picking surrogates? Perhaps because he appears to value sycophancy over competence? Maybe he is using Rudy to play 5 dimensional chess or whatever, but right now it looks like Rudy is harming him far more than he is helping him.
ReplyDeleteAnnnddd, here's the President of the United States requesting that a totalitarian regime and our chief rival in Asia investigate his political opponents.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1179770843372691460
That's conservative?
I think Matt earned his gold star for the day...advocating for the "pure" and misunderstood former VP. Matt, use your influence to get Kevin a $80,000 per month Board Seat somewhere in the World. If anybody questions it, he can run for President as a Democrat and invoke immunity ( because it appears no one can investigate a Presidential Candidate for corruption if they are a Democrat).
ReplyDeleteBob, I would ask you to quote me where I advocated for Joe Biden's purity? I think you've created a strawman, as I care little for the guy who used to be known as the Senator from MBNA. Your second sentence also implies false things, which is the problem in this discourse. People won't stick to the facts or discuss what the other person actually said - they have to embellish. There is no evidence that Joe Biden acted to get Hunter that job. Now, did Hunter Biden get it because of who he was related to? Almost certainly. That doesn't mean Joe Biden assisted in any way. If there is evidence, then let's you and I get it out there and discuss it.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to make a rule that says politicians and their immediate families should be prohibited from obtaining income that has even the hint of influence peddling, I am with you all the way. Do you think Trump wants that (Ivanka's Chinese copyrights)? Do you think the Clintons want that (Clinton Foundation)? I know they don't - and so do you.
If you want to advocate that the CIA, DHS, FBI, whatever actual law enforcement agencies are tasked with this, investigate the offspring of all these politicians for evidence of wrongdoing, I'm with you. Full speed ahead. Surely we can agree on letting law enforcement do its job.
But if you and I cannot agree that the President of the United States should not use his personal lawyer, coordinating with his political appointees, to pressure or even request foreign governments to investigate his political rivals, well, then we just will have to disagree. No matter what party that President comes from, those actions are wrong.
And if we can't agree that the President of the United States should not hold up lawful appropriations by Congress, or trade talks, in order to pressure a country to investigate his foreign rivals, especially Communist China, well then we are looking at different Constitutions. Here's mine: https://constitutionus.com/
Incidentally, the quid pro quo with Ukraine has now been supported by the text messages and emails from Volker's deposition. I like to go to the original source, which you can find embedded here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/house-democrats-release-text-excerpts-from-volker-testimony-alleging-trump-pressure-on-ukraine/
Should be political rivals, not "foreign rivals". That's the problem with run-on sentences.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, if you don't want to believe me that foreign governments have no place in our elections, will you believe Vice President Pence?
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1180112851442290690