“Now there is one witness, one witness that they won’t bring in front of us — they won’t bring in front of the American people,” Jordan said. “And that’s the guy who started it all: the whistleblower.”
He was referring to the unnamed Central Intelligence Agency analyst who first sounded the alarm in August that Trump may have halted military aid to Ukraine in order to secure an investigation of former vice president Joe Biden. “This anonymous so-called whistleblower,” Jordan continued, “who is the reason we’re all sitting here today — we’ll never get a chance to question that individual.”
Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) saw his opening. “I’d say to my colleague,” Welch said, turning to face Jordan, “I’d be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify.” He gestured to the witness chair. “President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there.”
The audience, which had kept quiet through hours of sober testimony, burst into laughter. A clip of the exchange soon went viral. “Don’t sleep on @PeterWelch,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wrote on Twitter as she shared the video with millions of followers. “He’s great.”
Later that afternoon, Welch ran into Ocasio-Cortez as he walked from the hearing room to his office. “Great job earlier today,” she called to him. “When you can hear the laughs on C-SPAN, you know it’s loud!”
It was a brief moment of levity in a day otherwise freighted with seriousness. After weeks of taking depositions behind closed doors, Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence were finally making their case to the public that Trump had abused his power and should be removed from office. The president, they alleged, had used instruments of American diplomacy to further his own reelection prospects.
“If this is not impeachable conduct, what is?” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the committee’s chair, asked as he called the hearing to order Wednesday morning.
Seated before Schiff at the witness table were two veteran diplomats who had grown unsettled by the White House’s alleged meddling in Ukrainian affairs: William Taylor, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs.
In opening statements to the committee, both men described the emergence of a shadow foreign policy more concerned with Trump’s domestic political agenda than long-standing U.S. support for Ukraine. The president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, had attempted “to gin up politically motivated investigations,” Kent told the committee, and those efforts had “infect[ed] U.S. engagement with Ukraine.”
According to Taylor, one of his embassy employees had recently described overhearing a phone conversation in a Kiev restaurant between Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, and Trump. “The member of my staff could hear President Trump on the phone, asking Ambassador Sondland about ‘the investigations,’” Taylor said. “Ambassador Sondland told President Trump that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward.”
When the embassy staffer asked Sondland what Trump thought about Ukraine, according to Taylor, the E.U. ambassador said that the president “cares more about the investigations of Biden.”
In an interview outside the hearing room soon after Taylor revealed the Sondland exchange, Welch said that it “just really cements the fact that the president’s focus was on the investigations.” He added, “That was his concern with Ukraine.”
Though most of Wednesday’s proceedings were conducted by Schiff, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and their designated staffers, each committee member was afforded five minutes to question the witnesses. Welch used his time — after inviting Trump to testify — to question the extent of presidential power.
“Is there a limit?” he asked. “There is, because our Constitution says no one is above the law. And that limit is that one cannot — even as president — use the public trust of high office for personal gain.”
Welch noted that three key events had taken place on three consecutive days in July.
On July 24th, he recalled, special counsel Robert Mueller had taken questions from Congress about his investigation into Russian efforts to sabotage the 2016 election. “He established beyond doubt that it was the Russians who interfered in our election,” Welch said. “And he expressed a fear that that would be the new normal.”
On July 25th, Welch pointed out, Trump had placed a now-infamous phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during which Trump requested an investigation into the Bidens.
And on July 26th, Welch said, Taylor’s embassy employee had overheard Sondland’s call with Trump.
“So this is the question: The new normal that [former FBI] Director Mueller feared — is that a new normal that you fear?” Welch asked Taylor. “That a president — any president — can use congressionally approved foreign aid as a lever to get personal advantage in something that is in his interest but not the public interest?”
“That should not be the case, Mr. Welch,” Taylor said.
Disclosure: Paul Heintz worked as Peter Welch’s communications director from November 2008 to March 2011.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The Right Wing hyenas during the impeachment hearing looked like what they are: ignorant fascists. Stefanik had her Fox News Moment at the start then played the part of Trump’s poodle.
All the evidence in the world proving Trump’s corruption will not affect the lawless and cowardly GOP Senators. They have sold their souls for cheap to Trump. They want his White Supremacist/Authoritarian vision of the country. They are un-American , having abandoned the US Constitution for their 1000 Year Reich.
Welch’s zinger in response to a clown like Jim Jordan was a fun moment. Jordan is doing what comes naturally: defending a serial sexual assaulter, either in the White House or back in the locker room when he was a wrestling coach.
If Nixon would have had a propaganda/pablum machine like Fox News he may not have had to resign.
If Trump were truly innocent he would not be defying any Congressional subpoenas or blocking anyone from testifying. He would have nothing to hide. He would be testifying under oath himself. But he won’t because he knows how guilty and rotten he is. He is the American Caligula. He is a liability to the entire planet. And he should be removed from office.
Heres the video to the story. I saw this live and I must say that Peter Welch cracked me up. Right on point. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g3gqGN5BUWo
Watched Welch, excellent performance! As a ex Vermonter( lived there for 40+years) I was proud of him
Wow, awesome zinger. Zingers are awesome. Like Kamala’s zinger when she told Biden “I was that little girl”. She was picking out White House drapes because she landed such an awesome zinger. It’s as meaningless as singing God Bless America during the 7th inning stretch. Take that, terrorists!
LASSY2. So what exactly does that have to do with the hearing??
Speaking of ignorant, @NorthOldEnder must have fallen asleep during the impeachment hoax yesterday, because it was lacking any “evidence in the world proving Trump’s corruption”, but that doesn’t stop the lawless and cowardly liberal Senators. They have sold their soles to put their party before our country. They are un-American, having abandoned the US Constitution and their oath of office, for their own power.
Welch’s clown act was only a small part of the larger liberal circus.
If Trump were guilty of any of this, then he would have been found so after three years and $40M wasted on the Mueller Report hoax, but that proved to be the hoax that it is, so the liberals have to manufacture another hoax and here we are, with their dementia addled enablers pushing them over the cliff.
Allegedly withholding aide to Ukraine, Trump leveraged what we now understand to be an investigation into Ukrainian oligarchs who had stolen U.S. money, possibly implicating candidate Joe Biden. According to the phone transcript, the investigation included ‘Crowdstrike’ and the contention that the Mueller investigation may have “…started with Ukraine”.
The impeachment inquiry claims that Trump used the power of his office to specifically target Joe Biden to affect his own re-election, even though the phone transcript references several others, including other U.S. citizens.
Under this logic, any politician, Mr. Welch included, using the power of their office on a purely partisan basis, to introduce an impeachment investigation into Trump’s actions and directly affect their own 2020 re-election, should all be impeached – especially given that the current inquiry was initiated by anonymous hearsay testimony and effectively stopped a legitimate investigation into Ukrainian corruption.
Thank you, Rep. Welch. Very appropriate.
I see that we have some quite conservative “dislikers” on these comments. I’d thought it was just the way I said things, but nope, the…um…”cowardly Liberal Senators” are getting a flailing here too.
Someone thinks they are working for their party and not for our country. Ho ho. Let’s see the tax returns.
Wow, did Welch DO SOMETHING? Hooray!
More wasted time and money by Democrats. It’s pretty much all they do, here in VT and at the national level. Interestingly, the local virtue signalers I know believe the same things that the right does and when we discuss things, we agree on most. But, they’re so brainwashed or afraid or something, they just can’t admit that the country is headed in a great direction thanks to OUR President. That’s right, he’s yours too, regardless of what your idiotic bumper sticker says.
Welcome, Carson,
“virtue signalers”? Never heard that one. Our president is leading us in a great direction?
I had no idea. Guess there’s two schools of thought on that one.
Peter Welch’s questioning was brilliant, bringing into even sharper focus the pathetic nature of Trump Forever defenders like Jordan and their arguments.
It’s the laughter he generated at Jordan’s expense that has been most frequently noted. But getting Jordan laughed out of the room is nothing compared with reminding us that Trump — strictly to serve himself — put in jeopardy a seventy year peace following a war that cost over 400,000 American lives “and that threatened each and every one of us up here and the constituents we represent.” Robert Taylor, whose credibility is as good as it gets, confirmed: “That’s a fair statement.”
Defending the Constitution = virtue signaling.
Career non-partisan diplomats = secret deep state Democrats
The new MAGA thinking caps (made in China) are firing on all cylinders.
Mr. Trout,
Defending the Constitution = defending the Constitution. Which signals are virtuous?
PS – do you believe in this “deep state” thing? I can’t make heads or tails of it. Covert operations maybe?
Welch is a JOKE. He thinks he’s a big shot from Vt. Where was he when Clinton had sex with a young intern??? Where was he mouth when obama gave 150 billion to Iran, where was he when obama tried to change the election in Isreal? Why didn’t little Welch bring impeachment charges against obama and Clinton for lying to the Military families and the public about the 4 people who were murdered in Benghazi, claiming the attack was because of a video which was a made-up lie. Yet that’s ok because they are democrats who think they are above the law. Welch and Leahy should be impeached for their roles in the biggest hoax in Vt….. EB-5
TRUMP 2020…
Perhaps a useful way to test the validity of our beliefs is to exchange in our minds those involved with members of the opposite party. In this case, say put in if Obama and consider what our response would be had he taken these actions as President. At the same time it is worth considering how we would act if Clinton was replaced in our minds by Trump during that impeachment some 20 years ago.
If we are honest about this, it may increase our own understanding of the other side’s view as well as help separate what is a partisan response from what is a danger to our republic.
Oh for goodness sake Messing, did you really not get that Trout is on your side?
Hey there knowassumtions, what’s up? If you know what he means, and I don’t, why not let me know it, instead of just letting out a taunt? Whatsamattayou? We think differently. Remember?
“We think differently”
Um, no, that’s not the issue. Look up “sarcasm” and then re-read Trout’s post.
Have a nice day.
Boutin:
“Where was [Welch] when Clinton had sex with a young intern???”
He wasn’t in Congress and wouldn’t be for another 8 years or so. The Lewinsky affair came to light in 1998. Welch wasn’t elected to Congress until 2006. Please try to think before you type.
“Why didn’t little Welch bring impeachment charges against obama and Clinton for lying to the Military families and the public about the 4 people who were murdered in Benghazi”
Are you suggesting that a Congressman can bring “impeachment charges” against a Secretary of State? And in 2012, when the Benghazi attack happened, Republicans were in charge of the House. The Republicans investigated Benghazi (ad nauseum), but they did not bring “impeachment charges” against Secretary Clinton or President Obama. So why are you asking why Welch didn’t bring “impeachment charges”? Your right wing screed makes no sense.
“Welch and Leahy should be impeached”
And exactly how do you propose that a U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator can be “impeached”? Is there a provision in the Constitution that says this?
Hey Sumptions,
We think differently; we have different senses of humor. All I did was ask him what he meant.
Can’t you leave it at that?
If you go at me again on this comment page, I’ll report you for violating the guidelines.
You have a “nice” day too.
*Remove Congressman Welch from office. Drain the swamp.
1. Pres. Trump is upholding the law. Dims aren’t.
2. Trump is working for America, not the globalists. Congress is not working at all, only sabotaging our President. Fire them.
3. Pres. Trump is not at all racist. More Dim lies.
4. Trump attacks dishonest liberal press, just like 7Daze. They are leftist controlled propaganda, enemies of the people.
5. Declas is coming, 234,000 sealed indictments. The Dims are going to go down hard.
Facts clear the Russians from the false charges test they hacked DNC server. The DNC is s criminal syndicate working with NATO. Evil bunch.
“NSA Genius Debunks Russiagate Once & For All – YouTube”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv0-Lnv0d0…
——————
Fund raising letter from VT. Democratic Congressman Peter Welch:
During nearly three years in office, President Trump has:
* run roughshod over the guardrails of our democracy, repeated placing himself above the law;
* stonewalled Congress at every turn, thumbing his nose at our constitutional checks and balances;
* employed racist rhetoric to stoke divisions in our country, attacking and demeaning Americans based on their race, religion, and ethnic origin; and
* viciously attacked and denigrated the free press, dangerously branding it the “enemy of the people.”
And now we know that the President pressured a foreign nation to investigate a political opponent while blocking vital security assistance for the for that country. In doing so he places his personal political interests above the national security interests of the American people.
“….and we have advanced legislation to tackle climate change,….”
Man made Climate Change is s hoax.
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019…
——————-
Mr. Welch, and many Vermonters apparently, dont know the President can withhold congressionally approved aid to a foreign country for any reason. “The 1974 Impoundment Control Act allows the president to propose to rescind funding previously approved by Congress. Lawmakers have 45 days to consider the request and if they do not act to support the rescissions during that window, the request is denied.”
https://www.govexec.com/management/2019/08…
Welch to Yavonovitch: The President’s prerogative to replace an ambassador “…assumes that the reasons are not related to the personal private political interests of the President at the expense of our national security. Right?”
Yavonovitch to Welch: “Yes.”
Oh, really? Flashback:
“The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, [2009] the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/20…
“The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the President TO REPORT PROMPTLY TO CONGRESS ALL WITHHOLDINGS OF BUDGET AUTHORITY and to abide by the outcome of the congressional impoundment review process.” http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/98783.pdf
In the case of military aid to Ukraine, President Trump not only did not report his withholding to Congress, he tried to lock it away in a secret safe in the White House. In other words, Trump cannot rely on the impoundment act to justify his attempted extortion.
**********
Ambassadors, like all political appointees, serve at the will of the president who does indeed have every right to remove them at any time for any reason. To my knowledge, incoming presidents all notify all ambassadors either individually or en masse that they will be asked to leave at the beginning of their first term.
So Trump committed no crime in removing Ambassador Yovanovich; his doing so is not, in itself, an impeachable offense. To my knowledge, no one is suggesting that this act would justify impeachment.
The question is not whether removing the ambassador was legal, but whether, in conjunction with everything else Trump did vis-à-vis Ukraine, he was acting in the interests of the country he governs, or whether, as the facts now amply show, he was acting out of pure political self-interest.
The former is, as Mulvaney suggested, business as usual. The latter is a textbook example of what the Constitution means by “treason, bribery, or other high crimes.”
If candidate Trump had paid Rudy Giuliani and his merry band from campaign funds to collect dirt on his political opponents, there would have been no legal or impeachable offense that I can discern.
But that’s NOT what he did. Instead, Trump, acting as President of the United States used taxpayer money which he had a legal obligation to use for the purpose Congress had determined in allocating it to serve NOT the interests of his country, but rather his own political interests. He effectively stole money which was not his to allocate, and diverted it to attempt to extort concessions from the Ukrainian president which have no conceivable bearing on American interests (unless one equates Trump’s interests with those of the nation).
That clearly IS an impeachable offense
Attempting to cover up this behavior and especially refusing to allow Congress its Constitutional rights of oversight clearly constitutes a second impeachable offense.
The rest is noise and diversion.
Charles Messing, my apologies for not being clear enough with the sarcasm. I though the MAGA (made in China) hat line was obvious.
Virtue signaling is just another way for conservative yahoos to denigrate and bully. In this case, they are choosing to attack those who defend the Constitution as ‘virtue signalers’. Brilliant.
Vermont’s Social Media Conservatives believe only in the freedom of the corporate state. Their allegiance lies to oligarchs, not the rule of law, and most definitely not the Constitution.
Thank you, Mr. Trout,
I had never heard the phrase before. I’m not chiefly a “political” guy – I’m a musician and writer. So I do think differently than many other people, and so have lost track of how other people think. I need reminding.
I wasn’t missing the MAGA hat jibe, just the others. I appreciate your note.
No matter what, some people on these threads hate my comments. Oh well.
You can call me Charlie – unless you send a check, in which case it is Charles. Let’s see how many dislikes I can gather with this one – they fall like snowflakes…
The sophistry describing Trump’s withholding of Ukrainian aid, is, at best, unfortunate. Who says the Office of Budget and Management (OMB) didnt follow the guidelines set forth in The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 when it announced the withholding of the aid in July of 2019?
The point is: the aid was approved by Congress in February 2019, it was withheld by OMB, and released in September 2019. To imply that the Trump administration didnt have the authority to withhold the aid in the 1st place is misleading. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that authority.
The misinformation disseminating now isnt only that Trump withheld the aid. Its being conflated by some commenters into a claim that Trump …effectively stole money which was not his to allocate.
The facts of the matter are clear. Trump didnt ‘steal’ the aid and he didnt ‘reallocate’ it either. He withheld it, temporarily, as The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 stipulates he has the authority to do.
Let me see if I understand the Democrat’s case.
Ambassador Yovanovitch testified that previous Ukrainian aid, approved by the U.S. Congress, had been stolen by Ukrainian oligarchs. Specifically, that one of them, Mykola Zlochevsky, who ran Ukrainian energy company Burisma while acting as Ukraine’s Minister of Ecology, directed significant portions of the approved aid to companies he controlled.
Then, in February of this year, Congress approved more aid to Ukraine. And the Trump administration, exercising the due diligence required of it, temporarily withheld the aid, pending an investigation to confirm it will be spent appropriately.
Now, the Congress is accusing Trump’s due diligence as effecting a de facto ‘bribe’, paid to the current Ukrainian government, to force Ukraine to undertake an investigation into various aspects of the corruption reported by Ambassador Yovanovitch.
And because Joe Biden, who’s son was curiously hired and paid more than $50,000 per month by Burisma, is currently running for office, Democrats are claiming Trump’s investigation offends Federal Election Commission campaign finance law “…by soliciting valuable assistance to his reelection efforts from a foreign government.”
So, as long as Biden continues to run for the presidency, the incumbent administration’s Justice Department is prohibited from investigating Ukrainian corruption, because Biden, the candidate, may be adversely affected by the investigation’s outcome.
Here’s the ‘tell’ in the Democrat’s strategy. It assumes, if there is an investigation, …the Trump campaign will indeed receive “valuable assistance to his reelection efforts”. Is it unreasonable then, to assume that if the investigation proves Biden’s innocence, it is, instead, Biden’s campaign that receives the ‘valuable assistance’?
It appears then, that the Democrats are admitting to Joe Biden’s guilt. And worse, by extension, the Democrats are obstructing the Ukrainian investigation and are complicit in the corruption described by Ambassador Yovanovitch’s testimony.
It is clear that those defending Trump’s actions do not understand that using taxpayer money appropriated by Congress to get a foreign power to announce an investigation into a political opponent is bribery.
Jay Eshelman is making up “facts” to suit his prejudices.
“Who says the Office of Budget and Management (OMB) didnt follow the guidelines set forth in The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 when it announced the withholding of the aid in July of 2019?” I do. If you have evidence that they did, please provide it and I’ll hastily admit I am wrong.
The public record amply shows that the real rationale had absolutely nothing to do with “an investigation to confirm it will be spent appropriately.” We wouldn’t be discussing this if there were any evidence that that was the case. Again, if you have any, present it here.
Instead, the evidence shows that Trump created a non-state channel, led by his personal lawyer, to dig up dirt on his political opponent and made the aid strictly contingent on the Ukrainians explicitly stating they would participate in this farce.
As I noted previously, Trump’s campaign has every right to waste its money however it chooses (within the constraints of election law and regulation). But NONE of this was done in the name of or with the funds of the Trump campaign. You and I paid for it, and as A. Trout points out, that’s bribery (and extortion).
As to Joe Biden, investigate away, again with your own money. For my part, I certainly hope he won’t be the Democratic nominee (for MANY reasons) and as far as my analytical skills let me see, I don’t think he will be.
But all the crap about Biden is just a diversion: IF Biden were guilty of something (and so far, there’s not a scintilla of evidence that he is), it would do NOTHING whatsoever to prove Trump’s innocence, any more that convicting Bonnie would prove that Clyde should walk free.
“If you have evidence that they did, please provide it and I’ll hastily admit I am wrong.”
This statement is exemplary of the pure sophism I referenced earlier. ‘Guilty until proven innocent.’
Trump withheld the aid. What more do you need to know?
No one said Trump didn’t have the right to do so, only that in doing so, he allegedly “…solicited valuable assistance to his reelection efforts from a foreign government.”
Again, the only way the requested investigation could prove to benefit Trump’s campaign is if it proves Biden was involved in the corruption. Under this logic, anything Trump does with a foreign government, that justifies his policies in the eyes of his constituents and subsequently assists his re-election, is a crime.
The only resolution to this sophistry is to go ahead and impeach Trump. Like Eli Wallach said as Tuco in the movie The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly “…if you’re going to shoot, shoot – don’t talk.”
“It is clear that those defending Trump’s actions do not understand that using taxpayer money appropriated by Congress to get a foreign power to announce an investigation into a political opponent is bribery”
Would it be bribery if the investigation was to determine if the taxpayer money was being used properly, and not stolen by a Ukrainian oligarch who just happened to be paying the Vice President’s son $50 thousand a month for dubious services?
Suppose there was no investigation and it was later determined there was corruption? Would Trump be accused of gross negligence and breaching his oath of office? Of course. This is the nature of this sophism.
Get on with the impeachment so we can have access to all of the evidence.
The history of Soros takeover. Must inform yourselves as to who the impeachment witnesses are.
If you don’t know Soros involvement in the State Dept., you need to learn.
Glenn Beck Presents: The Democrats’ Hydra – YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si-vMj-FB8…
My previous comment was too generous. The Trump campaign IS entitled to spend its own money digging for dirt on its opponents, but if it receives any assistance from a foreign government (here, Ukraine’s), it is required to report it. Trump’s campaign already pulled that stunt with Russia and Trump himself told George Stefanopolous on camera that he saw no problem with receiving such information from foreign governments. No problem except that it clearly violates American law.
Jay Eshelman now argues: “Trump withheld the aid. What more do you need to know?”
Had it not been for the impeachment inquiry committee’s indisputable evidence, no one but Trump’s secret team would ever have known that he withheld the aid. In fact, until last week, Congressional Republicans vehemently denied that he had done so.
It was Jay Eshelman who introduced this novel, but false defense theory: namely, that the “Impoundment Control Act of 1974,” gives presidents the right to withhold congressionally authorized funds. When I pointed out that the Act explicitly requires the president “TO REPORT PROMPTLY TO CONGRESS ALL WITHHOLDINGS OF BUDGET AUTHORITY” (emphasis added), Eshelman now replies “This statement is exemplary of the pure sophism I referenced earlier.”
Note that it was he who introduced this specious defense, not I, and that since he is unable to provide any evidence for it, he now resorts to a hollow, insulting label.
Here’s why this matters. If Trump had reported this withholding as he is required to, then we would not have needed Congressional hearings to reveal it, nor could Republicans have denied that he had done so with even a semblance of credibility.
The president knew what he had done was illegal, kept it from his own officials charged with carrying out American foreign policy (Taylor, Yovanovitch et al) and hid the documents in a secret safe. This is not the behavior of someone acting legally.
Finally, I would point out that even if Trump had the very best of motives in withholding the aid — which he did not — he clearly flouted the requirements of the law. Authorizing spending is the primary responsibility of Congress, not the President, under our Constitution. In other words, this is an offense against a basic Constitutional scheme.
While not really germane to the impeachment hearings, I can’t allow another of Jay Eshelman’s howlers to pass in silence.
“Again, the only way the requested investigation could prove to benefit Trump’s campaign is if it proves Biden was involved in the corruption.”
Nonsense.
Spreading rumors about anyone creates a negative public image. It doesn’t matter whether they’re true or not. Their mere existence is enough to have a deleterious impact. Republicans are well aware of this: in fact, it’s a game they’ve fully mastered.
There was never a scintilla of doubt that Obama was born in the United States, but ginning up arguments about his birth in Kenya was a useful propaganda tool that went on for years, despite there never being any evidence for it and a mountain of evidence against it.
As late as August, 2016, NBC reported: “Seventy-two percent of registered Republican voters still doubt President Obama’s citizenship, according to a recent NBC News|SurveyMonkey poll conducted in late June and early July of more than 1,700 registered voters. And this skepticism even exists among Republicans high in political knowledge.” http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/pol…
Maybe Jay Eshelman is naïve enough not to recognize this, but Donald Trump clearly does. He rose to fame, and ultimately to the presidency, on the back of totally mendacious “birther” claims. Now he’s trying to pull the same stunt against Biden.
In sum, Biden has ALREADY been damaged, whether or not there’s any substance to these claims, and the mere fact that we’re even discussing it hurts his campaign. If I thought that he could or should be the nominee, I’d be a lot more concerned about this than I am.
Rep. Welch just cited the logic included in some of these comments. Specifically, if Trump wants to investigate the Bidens’ action in Ukraine, he (Trump) should go ahead and do so – privately.
What Mr. Welch and others subscribing to this logic fail to comprehend are the various sovereignty doctrines found in U.S. and Ukrainian constitutions.
CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE
Article 1: Ukraine is the sovereign and independent, democratic, social, legal state.
Article 5. Ukraine is a republic. In Ukraine people are the transmitter of sovereignty and unique source of power. Nobody can usurp state authority.
The only entity that can investigate Ukrainian corruption is Ukraine, whether the U.S. makes the request/demand, or a private non-Ukrainian citizen makes the request. How convenient for Mr. Welch.
The only leverage the U.S. has to ensure its aid is not misused is to ask Ukraine to demonstrate that it has in place a process to investigate corruption…no matter where the investigation may lead.
The sophistry continues. Requesting/demanding that Ukraine demonstrate that it will investigate corruption in order to ensure that U.S. aid isn’t stolen again, isn’t ‘spreading rumors’. After all, the surest way to disprove a rumor is to expose it with an investigation. If an investigation shows that the Bidens are innocent of wrong-doing, what better vindication can that be? And again, the only legal authority to conduct an investigation in Ukraine rests with the Ukrainian government.
“Had it not been for the impeachment inquiry committee’s indisputable evidence, no one but Trump’s secret team would ever have known that he withheld the aid.”
Excuse me? The Ukrainians would know.
John Greenberg,
I agree with you. I think I agree with some of Mr. Eshelman’s comments too, but they are baffling in spots. It sounds like we’re all pretty much in agreement about wanting to find out the truth, and what was done illegally, etc.
We shall see.
Trump wasn’t interested in having the Ukrainian government investigate some general concept called “corruption.” He wanted the Ukrainians to publicly announce that they were investigating THE BIDENS. His domestic political rival. And he was willing to withhold much-needed military aid — that a bipartisan U.S. Congress had authorized so that Ukraine could defend itself against Darth Putin and the Russian Empire — in order to bully the Ukrainians into doing his bidding, to achieve his crass domestic political aims, without reporting his withholding to Congress, as required by law. And then the West Wing staff decided that, uh oh, better hide the July 25th call — the so-called “perfect” call — from Congress’s and the public’s eyes by locking it up in a super secure server.
Nah, nothing to see here, folks. Just another day in the presidency of Don Corleone Trump.
Our grifter President genuinely concerned about Ukrainian corruption??? That’s a sick joke. The real corruption was on the Atlantic side of the so-called “perfect” call on July 25. The Ukrainians could learn a thing or two about corruption by studying the Trump Crime Family and their idiot consigliere Rudy.
Now Jay Eshelman informs us — as usual without any factual evidence or basis whatsoever — that “The Ukrainians would know.”
That will come as a surprise to the Ukrainians, who according to the testimony of several officials working in connection with the Ukrainian government did NOT know until August, AFTER the July 25 conversation between the 2 president: “As of early August, I heard from U.S. officials that some Ukrainian officials were aware that U.S. aid might be in jeopardy, but I do not know how or when they learned of it,” the whistleblower complaint read.” https://thehill.com/policy/national-securi…
Similarly, thanks to other testimony, we now know that Trump was not demanding an investigation of corruption in general (ironically, Biden and the EU were doing precisely that!), nor even of Burisma. He specifically required an investigation of the Bidens, against whom he just happens to think he may be running for re-election. Pure coincidence, I’m sure.
The problem with making it up as you go along is that there actually is a real world, and in it, there are actually ascertainable facts. I make it a point to rely on those, rather than on debunked conspiracy theories that might sound appealing, but have absolutely no relationship to what actually happened.
Will be sweet to watch who in Vermont gets served. The number is up to 134,000 now.
Number of indictments for VT is over 154. “Weasel are us” is going down.
https://ho1.us/2019/10/124-558-sealed-indi…