Trump's Defenders: What would it Take?

[Jose Fly]

I would say the exact same thing Obama (Hillary) did when he asked for foreign powers to investigate Trump during the election.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, no, no, your misunderstanding the whole point.

The reality is this. Trump DID ask a favor from the ukraine president. FACT.

Trump did not DEMAND what he asked. FACT.

Trump wanted other countries to help ukraine. FACT.

The aid to ukraine was released. FACT.

Trump did say to sondland "i want no quid pro qoe. Tell zelinski i want nothing. Do the right thing." Paraphrase from memory. FACT.

All the "witness testimony" hearings all in unison admitted they had no evidence trump did wrong when they wer asked if they had evidence. FACT.

All the witnesses also admitted the bidens had the appearence of a conflict of interest with ukrain/burisma. FACT.

Now, those things HAPPENED.

What im telling you is, if hypothetically those things did not happen, like the aid was NOT released and trump DEMANDED a quid pro qoe, im saying that would have STILL NOT been wrong.

Thanks for clarifying.

First, this is tangential, but you have sculpted the facts - mischaracterizing some, leaving out others - in a self-serving way. I'll come back to this.

Second, and this the most important point: the hypothetical argument you laid out at the end of your post is AT ODDS WITH the argument that was pursued by Trump, and most (maybe all?) of the GOP at the outset of this inquiry. Namely, that THERE WAS NO quid pro quo and in fact Trump wanted "Nothing!" from Ukraine. You are saying it would have been fine; in so doing, as is common among Trump supporters, you are pursuing an even more generous defense of Trump, than Trump / the GOP are. Trump's argument from the outset was NOT: quid pro quos are just peachy.

That is totally fine if that is your argument. I just think it's important that we notice this distinction. Because I suspect that Trump, the Master of Lies, and his sycophants in the GOP, will end up adopting YOUR argument. And they will hope no one notices the switch. (Trump has actually already started doing this with his usual word-salad tactics of not saying anything clearly)

To wit, here is what Trump and the GOP were saying at the outset. Source: Trump’s “No Quid Pro Quo” Statements Are Clear Evidence of His Ukraine Motives [emphases mine]

Trump has been peddling the “no quid pro quo” line in public since late September, when he disclosed a rough transcript of his July 25 call with Zelensky. A week later, on Oct. 3, the House of Representatives released text messages that had been exchanged between Sondland and Bill Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. In a message dated Sept. 9, Taylor had warned Sondland that it was “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Five hours later, Sondland had written back: “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”

Trump cited these texts as proof of his innocence. On Oct. 4, the morning after they were released, he boasted to reporters that Sondland “said there was no quid pro quo. That’s the whole ballgame.”

That evening, the president got more ammunition. In a Wall Street Journal interview, Johnson said that on Aug. 31, he had called Trump to find out whether the aid was being withheld as leverage to get something from Ukraine. According to Johnson, Trump had replied with an expletive and said, “No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?” Johnson had answered that he’d heard it from Sondland. According to Johnson, Trump signaled that the aid would soon be released, telling the senator, “You’ll probably be happy with my decision.”

Johnson claimed that his story substantiated Trump’s innocence. It showed that on Aug. 31—well before House Democrats were alerted to a whistleblower complaint about Trump’s alleged extortion of Ukraine—Trump had dismissed the idea. “When I asked the president about that, he completely denied it,” Johnson recalled on Meet the Press. “He vehemently, angrily denied it. He said, ‘I’d never do that.’ ”

On Oct. 17, Sondland further bolstered the president’s defense. In a deposition before the House Intelligence Committee, he testified that before writing his “no quid pro quo” text on Sept. 9, he had called Trump directly to find out why the aid was being withheld. “I asked the president, ‘What do you want from Ukraine?’ ” Sondland told the committee. “The president responded, ‘Nothing. There is no quid pro.’ ” Sondland claimed that Trump had told him, “I want nothing. I don’t want to give them anything, and I don’t want anything from them.” He recalled that Trump “kept repeating ‘no quid pro quo’ over and over again.”

Last week, at an open hearing of the Intelligence Committee, Republicans seized on Sondland’s story. Nine times, they repeated the two sterling quotes: “No quid pro quo” and “I want nothing.” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, Trump’s point man on the committee, declared that these words were “the best direct evidence we have” of the president’s intent.

By the way, it is entertaining to note that Sondland merely asked Trump "What do you want from Ukraine?" and Trump then repeated "No quid pro quo!" angrily over and over again. It would be like if a police officer asked you "What are you doing?" and you repeated "I'm not robbing a bank!" over and over again. Proof of innocence, folks! As we now know, the reason Trump responded that way is because he was by that time already aware that he had essentially been caught. And as I said, an evil genius, Trump is not.

I would be curious to hear your view: if the President responds to Ukraine's discussion of US aid by asking for a favor, and then the President finds out he's being investigated for quid pro quo and subsequently tells his ambassador he wants "Nothing" from Ukraine; who did he lie to? Ukraine, or the ambassador? Clearly, he either wanted a favor, or he wanted "nothing"; but not both.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, no, no, your misunderstanding the whole point.

The reality is this. Trump DID ask a favor from the ukraine president. FACT.

Trump did not DEMAND what he asked. FACT.

Trump wanted other countries to help ukraine. FACT.

The aid to ukraine was released. FACT.

Trump did say to sondland "i want no quid pro qoe. Tell zelinski i want nothing. Do the right thing." Paraphrase from memory. FACT.

All the "witness testimony" hearings all in unison admitted they had no evidence trump did wrong when they wer asked if they had evidence. FACT.

All the witnesses also admitted the bidens had the appearence of a conflict of interest with ukrain/burisma. FACT.

Now, those things HAPPENED.

What im telling you is, if hypothetically those things did not happen, like the aid was NOT released and trump DEMANDED a quid pro qoe, im saying that would have STILL NOT been wrong.

Post #2 of 2 since it exceeds the character limit (sorry for that).

Circling back to the tangential point: I think you left out some key "FACTS" above. Again, this is tangential but I would be remiss if I did not respond.

1. First, you neglected to mention perhaps the most important "FACT" of all: while Trump was not "DEMANDING" the favor from Ukraine, he was witholding desperately sought after military aid, without an official explanation; aid which the Ukrainians were "desperately" asking to be released (according to Taylor's testimony). That's a FACT too, right?

2. You also left out the FACT that the aid was released AFTER Zelensky reacted positively to Trump's request for the "favor"; and AFTER Zelensky had scheduled a CNN interview where he was going to announce investigations into Biden publicly; and AFTER Trump became aware that this had all blown up into a Congressional inquiry. Trump also told Sondland "there is no quid pro quo" BEFORE Sondland used that word but AFTER Trump became aware that he was being accused of a quid pro quo (LOL ... can't make this stuff up). Those are more key FACTS you left out.

It's like saying a bank robber gave the money back ... but neglecting to note that the money was given back AFTER he was caught.

3. You also cherry picked your "FACTS" around witness testimony of Biden/Burisma. I agree with you that no one has denied, and I think no one can deny, there was the potential for the appearance of (if not an actual) conflict of interest re: Biden. But that is far from "All" the witnesses had to say on this topic. For example, you conveniently left out the FACT that Volker testified, under oath, the suggestion that Biden acted in a corrupt way outside the goals of US policy re: Ukraine is a "conspiracy theory [which is] self-serving and not credible". FACT.
Source: GOP impeachment witness Kurt Volker defended Joe Biden, saying corruption allegations are "self-serving" and "not credible"

Other witnesses reacted with similar skepticism or lack of any reason to believe Biden acted corruptly. Why does this matter? Well, if the president was re-purposing US military aid that had been approved by Congress in order to extract a favor that was "self-serving and not credible", it is indeed evidence Trump "did wrong" ... which would be contrary to another "FACT" you cited above.

4. On that point, you mischaracterized what "all the witness testimony" said re: evidence that Trump "did wrong". The witnesses were there as fact witnesses of what they saw and heard, and not there to judge whether Trump "did wrong". That is up to Congress. Fiona Hill, for one, said that explicitly. Vindman was so alarmed by what he heard on the call that he immediately reported it to NSC lawyers (tangentially, we've all see the transcript of what alarmed Vindman now, and 70% of our divided country admits what Trump did was wrong
Source: 70% of Americans say Trump’s actions tied to Ukraine were wrong: POLL )

John Bolton and Fiona Hill were so disturbed, that they also reported what was going on to WH lawyers and confronted Gordon Sondland. So did Vindman, saying the tying of the aid and a meeting to investigations was inappropriate. Additionally, Bill Taylor testified a reaffirmation of what he said at the time: "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign". Fiona Hill characterized what was happening as "US foreign policy ... and a domestic political errand ... had diverged". Sondland testified "yes [there was a quid pro quo] at the express direction of the president". Hill testified, and Sondland acknowledged, that Trump called Sondland asking "if Ukraine would do the investigations". Both Hill and Holmes said that if a president is allowed to engage in such quid pro quos, it would set a "very bad precedent" for future presidents. The transcript has Trump telling Zelensky to "talk to Rudy". Rudy has admitted in TV interviews that he asked Ukraine to investigate Biden. ALL the witnesses were very disturbed by Rudy's involvement, which was seen as highly unusual and inappropriate.

So no, I do not agree it is a "FACT" that the witnesses "admitted they had no evidence Trump did wrong", as you asserted. That's a self-serving over-simplification, at best.

Admittedly, it would be even MORE convincing that Trump "did something wrong" if we could have Trump, Mulvaney, Pence and other senior WH staff testify to confirm or refute what the other witnesses saw and heard. If Trump DID NOT do anything wrong then why don't they testify under oath and relate the "Noble" conversations and share the "Noble" emails on the subject that are exculpatory. If there is no evidence Trump "did wrong" then why is the WH stonewalling? Why is the president illegally blocking / threatening staff who obey lawful subpoenas of Congress? I think we all know why.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

On what charges?

The first three articles of impeachment against Nixon were:

1. Obstruction of justice
2. Abuse of power
3. Contempt of Congress

This reads like Trump's to-do list.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That's the bottom line.

There's no cover up.

Trump has been open all along.

There's been no law broken because the Socialist Democrats can't even specifically cite a single one thats on the books. Just the imaginary ones they pluck out of their heads.

None. Na da...

How is he being open when he is directing his staff to illegally not comply with lawful subpoenas of Congress? Gordon Sondland testified under oath that he was there in good faith, but put in an unfair situation because (a) the WH was directing him to not comply and (b) the State Dept. refused to allow him to review his emails to refresh his memory of events.

The Trump strategy seems to be to prevent key witnesses from testifying who have the most firsthand information, smear the reputations of those who dutifully comply, and then cry that all the evidence is hearsay and Trump hasn't had a chance to confront his accusers. Why doesn't he confront them then - under oath, not on Fox and Friends.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How is he being open when he is directing his staff to illegally not comply with lawful subpoenas of Congress? Gordon Sondland testified under oath that he was there in good faith, but put in an unfair situation because (a) the WH was directing him to not comply and (b) the State Dept. refused to allow him to review his emails to refresh his memory of events.

The Trump strategy seems to be to prevent key witnesses from testifying who have the most firsthand information, smear the reputations of those who dutifully comply, and then cry that all the evidence is hearsay and Trump hasn't had a chance to confront his accusers. Why doesn't he confront them then - under oath, not on Fox and Friends.

Maybe history will offer a clue.

Can Congress Subpoena Trump to Testify? - Just Security

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Maybe history will offer a clue.

Can Congress Subpoena Trump to Testify? - Just Security

I note you did not respond to the question, which is how can you say Trump is being open when he is instructing his staff to disobey lawful subpoenas and trashing the ones who do obey.

The State Dept. wouldn't let Sonldand review his emails to refresh his memory. Why wouldn't they let him do that? Isn't the goal to just clear this whole thing up and move on?

The State Dept. also prevented John Bolton from using his Twitter account. Very mysterious. Other witnesses said Bolton described Guiliani as a "hand grenade" and the tying Ukraine aid to investigations a "drug deal" that he wanted no part of. Will be very interesting if John Bolton, long-time darling of conservatives, testifies under oath. He may have nothing incriminating to say but feels like the story is incomplete without at least hearing that from the man himself, given he was in some of the key meetings that have been discussed and he may have spoken directly with the president. We shall see.

 

[Jollybear]

Trump did not DEMAND what he asked. FACT -- however, holding out money and a White House visit, while not demands, are very much akin to bribery, don't you think?

If thats bribery then every time i buy groceries im committing bribery then.

Aid has conditions attached. And it SHOULD.

The aid to ukraine was released. FACT

- incomplete fact, however, since the money was released only AFTER the White House was aware that the whistleblower had blabbed. Timing matters in these things.

Well, it was still released. But like i said, even if it wer to never been released, it wouldnt matter.

Trump did say to sondland "i want no quid pro qoe. Tell zelinski i want nothing. Do the right thing."

Paraphrase from memory. FACT This appears to be not so factual anymore. There is no White House record of a conversation with him on the date specified -- however, there is a record of a conversation a few days earlier that is much less friendly to Trump's case.

No, trump did say that to sondland. Yes he did.

Not sure what hearings you were watching.

This is just a list of Republican talking points, not grounded in reality. Of course, we've already been over them umpteen times.

Just an FYI for you ... that call where Trump told Sondland "no quid pro quo, I want nothing" came AFTER the whistleblower complaint was being made public. In other words, AFTER he was already caught. It doesn't matter anymore at that point, it's too late.

No, its never too late. Plus as my point shows even if trump said i want a quid pro qoe, that would be good.

I have no clue where you got the idea that "all the 'witness testimony' in unison admitted they had no evidence Trump did wrong." All of their combined testimony all corroborates that there was a quid pro quo here, as well as a cover up.

Look man, you watched the same testimonies i did. Do i really got to take the time to dig up all there quotes to prove it to you? Because if i got to spend 30 minutes to an hour, i will. But, do i need to? All of them wer asked if they had any evidence trump did wrong, they all directly said NO.

Here's a question for you, if Trump thought Ukraine was as corrupt as he'd like us to believe, why would he ask them to investigate anything, never mind themselves?

Because zelenski was the new president who got elected on his promise to crack down on corruption.

Do corrupt people usually carry out ethical investigations of themselves? It makes even less sense once you realize that Trump's got the DOJ, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, etc. at his disposal. Instead, he sends his personal lawyer, who holds absolutely no position in government and hasn't passed any security clearances whatsoever.

Trump believes alot of them are the swamp. And rudy is his defense for calling for investigation into a political rival.

Also, if Trump was so worried about corruption in Ukraine, how come all he asked for (and apparently cared about) was a public television announcement that they were investigating the Bidens?

Is this even a serious question? Of course trump wanted a real investigation into the biden/burisma issue and the 2016 election.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If thats bribery then every time i buy groceries im committing bribery then.

Aid has conditions attached. And it SHOULD.

Lots if issues with what you are saying here but let’s just home in on the most salient one: if there were conditions attached, then why is Trump saying there weren’t?

When Sondland asked Trump what do you want from Ukraine he said “I want nothing from Ukraine” and he has been repeating that. When a US Senator (or maybe it was a Congressman) asked Trump why the aid was being held up and if any conditions were being tied to the aid, Trump vehemently denied it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Trump believes alot of them are the swamp. And rudy is his defense for calling for investigation into a political rival.

This makes no sense. If Trump believes his own ambassadors to the EU and Ukraine are the swamp why did he appoint them? Why does Trump’s lawyer need to be involved when Trump is not the subject of the putative investigation?

It’s a huge conflict of interest - Trump charged with representing the United States, directing Ukraine to speak to his lawyer Rudy, who is charged with representing his client. Is any Republican taking the same stand you are, and saying this was appropriate? I’m not saying that makes you wrong (of course it doesn’t) I’m just curious.

There’s no excuse for using Rudy except to avoid the record keeping and scrutiny and skirt the rules that govt employees have to follow, and to insulate the President from being responsible to whatever Rudy said to the Ukrainians. The president’s calls are listened to and recorded as he has become painfully aware - did that happen with Rudy’s conversations?

The mob uses lawyers for the same reason.

Trump used Cohen, his previous lawyer, for the same purposes.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Lots if issues with what you are saying here but let’s just home in on the most salient one: if there were conditions attached, then why is Trump saying there weren’t?

When Sondland asked Trump what do you want from Ukraine he said “I want nothing from Ukraine” and he has been repeating that. When a US Senator (or maybe it was a Congressman) asked Trump why the aid was being held up and if any conditions were being tied to the aid, Trump vehemently denied it.

Also, keep in mind we are talking about any “additional” conditions that Trump may have tied to the aid and explain why it was withheld without an official explanation.

Congress holds the purse strings, not the President, and Congress had approved the aid. So Ukraine met that condition. Holmes testified that the release of aid requires certain standard anti-corruption conditions and those had been met, too. It was a political appointee in the OMB who signed the order to withhold the aid, without any explanation, which was so irregular and that two OMB career officials apparently resigned in protest. And it was so irregular that Congress launches an investigation - “and here we are”.

So again just to make clear: yes there were conditions and Ukraine had already met them to receive the aid. The question is whether Trump ties additional, as yet not admitted to “conditions” of his own. You say he did, why does Trump say he didn’t?

And what were those conditions? And why did Trump decide those conditions had been met and the aid could be released two days after he learned he was being investigated?

So many unanswerable questions ...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If thats bribery then every time i buy groceries im committing bribery then.

If you were buying groceries with somebody else's money that you had no right to spend, then you were certainly doing something wrong.

Those funds were allocated by Congress -- without any stipulation as to favours helping Trump's re-election -- and they were not his to use for his own, private purposes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lots if issues with what you are saying here but let’s just home in on the most salient one: if there were conditions attached, then why is Trump saying there weren’t?

He could've been aware of the appearance suggesting exactly that.
Pre-emptive denial could be either guilt or insecurity.

Btw, don't expect me to what actually coursed thru his mind.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

He could've been aware of the appearance suggesting exactly that.
Pre-emptive denial could be either guilt or insecurity.

I have re-read this a few times, and I’m afraid I don’t understand what you are suggesting here. My apologies. Could you please clarify?

I guess I don’t know what “that” refers to when you say “the appearance suggesting exactly that”.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have re-read this a few times, and I’m afraid I don’t understand what you are suggesting here. My apologies. Could you please clarify?

I guess I don’t know what “that” refers to when you say “the appearance suggesting exactly that”.

He could've been aware that his acts could appear to be extortion/bribery.
Hence, the preemptive denial.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

He could've been aware that his acts could appear to be extortion/bribery.
Hence, the preemptive denial.

Well we now know that he was definitely aware that his acts could appear as extortion/bribery because his lawyers had briefed him on the whistleblower complaint by that time.

Are you saying, he could have been telling Sondland and Senator Johnson the truth that he wanted “nothing” from Ukraine? And he was quick to say “no quid pro quo” only because he was aware of how it appeared? I think I see what you’re saying now. It doesn’t make sense that he wanted “nothing” from Ukraine though, since he specifically asked Ukraine for a “favor”.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well we now know that he was definitely aware that his acts could appear as extortion/bribery because his lawyers had briefed him on the whistleblower complaint by that time.

Are you saying, he could have been telling Sondland and Senator Johnson the truth that he wanted “nothing” from Ukraine? And he was quick to say “no quid pro quo” only because he was aware of how it appeared? I think I see what you’re saying now. It doesn’t make sense that he wanted “nothing” from Ukraine though, since he specifically asked Ukraine for a “favor”.

Oh, I think he wanted something, rather than "nothing".
But one question is whether it was an exchange.
And another is whether it was for personal gain rather than the country's business.
Clearly establish affirmative answers, & that would justify strong negative sanction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Second, and this the most important point: the hypothetical argument you laid out at the end of your post is AT ODDS WITH the argument that was pursued by Trump, and most (maybe all?) of the GOP at the outset of this inquiry. Namely, that THERE WAS NO quid pro quo and in fact Trump wanted "Nothing!" from Ukraine. You are saying it would have been fine; in so doing, as is common among Trump supporters, you are pursuing an even more generous defense of Trump, than Trump / the GOP are. Trump's argument from the outset was NOT: quid pro quos are just peachy.

Kettle Logic

In an example used by Sigmund Freud in The Interpretation of Dreams, a man accused by his neighbor of having returned a kettle in a damaged condition offered three arguments:

That he had returned the kettle undamaged;
That it was already damaged when he borrowed it;
That he had never borrowed it in the first place.

Explanation: Each statement contradicts the one before. If it was already damaged, how did he return it undamaged? If he never borrowed it, how was it already damaged when he borrowed it?