Trump, Ukraine, and Biden
What we know for sure.
At the moment there are three categories about the Trump/Biden/Ukraine story. One category is what the whistle-blower reported. We do not know what that report contains. A second category is what has been reported, to include a WSJ report that Trump brought up the topic of Biden roughly eight times to President Zelensky of Ukraine. Other reports have also stated that the topic came up in the call. The third are things that we know for sure via Trump himself and his surrogate, Rudy Giuliani.
Let’s look at what we can say we know for sure.
We know that the Trump campaign has been interested in a Biden-Ukraine connection for some time now. The Guaridan (which has a timeline of th issue) noted that it was brought up in April during a Giulani interview on a Fox News program and the NYT reported Giuliani mentioning the issue in early May:
“I can assure you this all started with an allegation about possible Ukrainian involvement in the investigation of Russian meddling, and not Biden,” Mr. Giuliani said. “The Biden piece is collateral to the bigger story, but must still be investigated, but without the prejudgments that infected the collusion story.”
Via the NYT: Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies
Then, also in May, Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, was set to fly to Kiev in regards to issues for the Trump re-election campaign:
Mr. Giuliani said he plans to travel to Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in the coming days and wants to meet with the nation’s president-elect to urge him to pursue inquiries that allies of the White House contend could yield new information about two matters of intense interest to Mr. Trump.
One is the origin of the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The other is the involvement of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s son in a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch.
Via the NYT: Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to Push for Inquiries That Could Help Trump.
The president-elect in question was Zelensky.
Giuliani described his planned trip thusly:
“I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”
Source: ibid.
Again, “my client” is the President of the United States. And it is pretty clear that he wanted Ukraine to be “helpful” as it pertains to politics, either discrediting the Mueller report and as it pertained to Paul Manafort and his dealings with Ukraine, and/or the Hunter Biden issue. Indeed, Giuliani specifically stated “this isn’t foreign policy”–meaning he was going to represent Trump, not to represent the United States.
The entire linked NYT piece is worth a read.
Giuliani would eventually cancel that trip.
So, we have known for months that Trump has had interest in Ukraine in terms of its potential for political help in the 2020 campaign. This was disturbing when Giuliani’s trip was announced, especially given the foreign interference in the 2016 election. But at a minimum, it clearly establishes, without leaks or speculation, that Trump had interest in Ukraine vis-a-vis Biden.
We also have Giulani, this past week, in the following interchange on CNN:
“Did you ask the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden?” Cuomo asked Giuliani.
“No, actually I didn’t. I asked the Ukraine to investigate the allegations that there was interference in the election of 2016 by the Ukrainians for the benefit of Hillary Clinton, for which there is already a court finding,” Giuliani responded.
“You never asked anything about Hunter Biden? You never asked anything about Joe Biden and his role with the prosecutor?” Cuomo asked.
“The only thing I asked about Joe Biden is to get to the bottom of how it was that Lutsenko, who was appointed, dismissed the case,” Giuliani said.
“So you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?” Cuomo pressed.
“Of course I did,” Giuliani said.
When asked about his contradicting answer, Giuliani said he “didn’t ask” for Biden to be investigated specifically, but asked Ukraine “to look into the allegations that related to my client, which tangentially involved Joe Biden in a massive bribery scheme.”
(emphasis mine)
So, from Giuliani’s own mouth, in several instances over a span of months, we know that the Trump campaign thinks that there is political hay to be made from Ukraine as it pertains to Joe Biden.
Giuliani would go on to tweet the following:
In this tweet he a) admits that Trump brought up the topic, and b) doubles-down on the notion that the Bidens have engaged in corruption in Ukraine (which underscores that the Trump campaign really thinks they have something here). He can’t even manage to pretend like the conversation was about generic corruption in 240 characters. No, he explicitly named Biden.
All of this, I hasten to remind us all, is trying to use a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political rival.
And, we have Trump stating the following:
“The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, was largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place. It 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 said.
Via VOA News: Trump Says He Did Nothing Wrong in Call with Ukrainian Leader
Setting aside Trump’s weird syntax leading to the slip that “The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, was largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place” we have here an admission that the basic topic of investigations relevant to Biden was discussed.
All of this confirms, without the whistle-blower’s report nor with corroboration of press reports, that Trump and his surrogates have been trying to get Ukraine to investigate Biden (or, if we are going to excruciatingly fair, to investigate corruption, with Biden being a guiding example).
So, really, the only pending issue is exactly in what form was the topic raised and whether they was an explicit quid pro quo. I am of the opinion that there is a standing implicit quid pro quo in any conversation between POTUS and a less powerful state which is seeking aid from the US. Such is the nature of international relations between grossly incongruent powers.
So, we know for sure that a) the campaign sees the Biden issue in Ukraine as one worth pursing, as has for months, b) that it is willing to reach out to a foreign government for help on the matter, and that c) Trump himself raised the issue on the phone with Ukrainian president.
This is dangerous stuff and is clearly the President of the United States abusing the power of his office in an attempt to acquire aid from a foreign government to help him in his re-election bid.
By the way, here is how the Ukrainian government described the conversation in July right after they happened:
Donald Trump is convinced that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve image of Ukraine, complete investigation of corruption cases, which inhibited the interaction between Ukraine and the USA.
Source: official web site of the President of Ukraine
This confirms, at a minimum, that corruption was discussed. Given the fact that the we know that going back to May that the Trump POV was that “corruption in Ukraine” was linked to Manafort and to Biden, it seems quite plausible that Trump mentioned Biden in that call.
As such, I think that Tom Nichols is correct in his piece in the Atlantic: If This Isn’t Impeachable, Nothing Is.
Let us try, as we always find ourselves doing in the age of Trump, to think about how Americans might react if this happened in any other administration. Imagine, for example, if Bill Clinton had called his friend, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, in 1996, and asked him to investigate Bob Dole. Or if George W. Bush had called, say, President Vicente Fox of Mexico in 2004 and asked him—indeed, asked him eight times, according to The Wall Street Journal—to open a case against John Kerry. Clinton, of course, was eventually impeached for far less than that. Is there any doubt that either man would have been put on trial in the Senate, and likely chased from office?
Indeed.
But setting aside those counterfactuals, we already know enough to get us into a serious impeachment conversation. And, without a doubt, the contents of the phone must be made known to Congress.
And, at some point, Republican officer-holders and Trump supporters in the general populace are going to have to decide whether or not actively soliciting the help of a foreign government for electoral gain is worthy of their allegiance. Judges and tax cuts can only go so far, right?
Whether or not there “was an explicit quid pro quo” really isn’t relevant.
https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1175159458328133634
Here’s the deal: don’t fall for the “if there was quid pro quo” trap. If
@realDonaldTrump
told a foreign government to investigate his opponent that’s it. Game. Set. Match. He has committed a crime. If he’s innocent, he’ll release the tapes. #ReleaseTheTapes
I just heard Trump on TV. he said the following things:
1 I don’t know who the whistleblower is.
2 The whistleblower is extremely partisan this is all coming from the other party.
3 I don’t want to talk about what was said on the phone call.
4 what you should be investigating is Biden withholding millions of dollars he’s corrupt.
The whole world knows Trump is stupid, senile and crooked. People who worked for Trump know he’s a ‘moron’. Our dotard-in-chief is being humiliated on a daily basis by Kim and Xi and the Ayatollahs, bought and used like a sex worker by MBS and of course Putin.
The world is laughing at us. Everyone can see that the emperor is stark fking naked. All except for the cult, and even they know it’s true.
Steven, you’re not cynical enough.
And, at some point, Republican officer-holders and Trump supports in the general populace are going to have to decided whether or not actively soliciting the help of a foreign government for electoral gain is worthy of their allegiance. Judges and tax cuts can only go so far, right?
Nah. Expect an incredible blitz of both-sides argumentation, where because the Democrats refused to adopt GOP positions on guns, health care, trans-rights, abortion, immigration, and climate change, there will be no choice but to support Trump, or out of wisdom, sorrow, and moderation shake one’s head at the folly of partisan politics.
@Sleeping Dog: Please read that sentence with as much snark and sarcasm as one might can muster.
Yeah, I agree. And it’s already got more evidence behind it than the “Russian Collusion” claims after they got a thorough investigation. I think this is incontrovertibly impeachable conduct.
However, I do not see things changing when it comes to the prospects for removal from office. The Senate is now a bimodal institution with none of the ideological overlap that existed during the Clinton years, plus our politics are much more tribal than any recent period in our history. I think retrenchment is the likely response from Senate Republicans.
Related, there is also the problem of legitimacy, ie. whether the Democratic leadership can successfully make the argument to a highly polarized public and propagandized public that impeachment isn’t just a partisan power-grab. I have my doubts. Positive and negative partisanship along with tribalism are likely to rule the day. And Democrats will, I’m sure put their own electoral prospects as one of the primary factors in deciding what to do.
And the end of the day, I’m guessing the Warren camp is ecstatic about this. Trump gets hurt and Biden gets hurt, even if everything was on the up-and-up with whatever his son was doing in Ukraine. Given that it’s Ukraine we’re talking about and, like a lot of weak and corrupt countries, you can’t do business there without greasing some palms, then there’s a good chance there is some real dirt that hurts Biden. That leaves a battle among progressives for the nomination and Warren is clearly in the best position there.
@Modulo Myself: And I know how a lot of them are going to decide.
(Although years from now they will pretend like they decided differently).
@Andy:
False. An investigation that is systematically obstructed cannot by any stretch be considered ‘thorough.’ When Trump releases his records, frees his people to testify and stops suing every single time there’s any request for data, then we’ll see.
@Andy:
False. An investigation that is systematically obstructed cannot by any stretch be considered ‘thorough.’ When Trump releases his records, frees his people to testify and stops suing every single time there’s any request for data, then we’ll see.
@michael reynolds:
Except for the fact that Mueller report itself states that Trump’s obstruction efforts failed.
@Andy: Attempted obstruction of justice isn’t much less criminal than obstruction of justice.
@Andy:
Andy, can you point me to some analysis to back up that claim?
At best, the report states the following:
Mostly unsuccessful is not the same as saying the efforts failed out right.
Further the report also notes the overall lack of cooperation from many witnesses leading to an incomplete understanding of the facts:
@Andy:
He says no such thing. He says quite clearly that he cannot clear Trump. And he does not clear Trump of obstruction, that’s nonsense. And again: an obstructed investigation is no investigation at all. If you think Trump has been cleared of collusion you’re watching Fox News.
Now I see @mattbernius: beat me to it.
“And, at some point, Republican officer-holders and Trump supports in the general populace are going to have to decide whether or not actively soliciting the help of a foreign government for electoral gain is worthy of their allegiance. ”
They will decide that it’s fake news. They will say the only scandal here is that Joe and Hunter Biden aren’t in prison already. They will say that Trump is fighting corruption.
If the Trump supporters I know personally are any indication–and being a retired military man, I know plenty–they have already decided. They are with Trump to the bitter end. He could strangle a baby on live television and they’d find some way to rationalize it.
I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: I am deeply saddened when I see people who stood beside me at the East German border, having sworn to die if necessary to keep the Russians out of the West, just handing over the keys because that’s what Trump wants.
Suppose that Biden was using the office of VP to pressure the Ukrainian government to protect his corrupt kid. Just for the sake of conversation.
How is this effort by the Trump Administration different than the Obama Administration opening an investigation into Donald Trump’s incessant Russian contacts?
I ask because we all know that this is going to be the talking points on the right, and I just want to get in before our right wing talking point transcribers.
So, before we set about “proving” what Trump did and said, we need to wonder whether there is anything he could have done or said that would get the Senate and/or the American people to pursue impeachment. I am kinda doubting there is any such a thing. I can hear Moscow Mitch droning, “the chief concern of our President is that America not have corrupt leadership. For that reason, he told Ukraine that he would not deliver on the military aide commitment until Ukraine issued findings that Joe Biden is individually corrupt and eats babies because without such a finding Biden would be the next President and rain corruption (and baby eating) onto the American people. I, for one, believe that Mr. Trump is doing a hero’s work.” And we’d be done.
In a courtroom, we have this term called “opening the door.” It means that you can have a ruling that some topic or other is deemed off limits and inadmissable, usually for the legitimate benefit of one party. But if that party then raises the topic, he has “opened the door” and all bets are off. It seems to me that the Administration cannot take the position that the conversation was privileged and entitled to confidentiality and then turn around and say what they want about the contents. I sided with James initially on the executive privilege argument, but the President has let that ship sail, and he set it on fire before he pushed it off.
One more thing, the whistleblower mentioned a “promise” by the President. None of our speculation above identifies or even speculates what the promise might have been.
@Mikey: Yep. They’re with him to the end. I saw an interview last spring with some Trumpkins. When the reporter asked if there was anything Trump could do or say that would alienate them, the two women replied: “No.”
@Gustopher:
One big difference: Obama’s investigation was done by the FBI and the DOJ. The way you would if you thought there was actual criminal activity going on. Trump sent a campaign staffer.
@Gustopher:
It’s different in a couple key ways:
First, Obama was not running against Trump (or running for reelection).
Second, it was an investigation of unfolding activities — not specifically investigating a “cold case” from 5 years ago.
Then there is everything that @Stormy Dragon mentioned as well.
Additionally, there is the question of whether or not the President was withholding foreign aide in an attempt to influence the investigation.
@Gustopher: Obama didn’t call putin and ask him to build a case against trump and offer him money to do it.
Trump is still carrying on on Twitter about having a 51% approval rating. Where is he getting that figure?
@CSK: Rasmussen.
Ever since I first started following polls, Rasmussen was an outlier, inaccurately leaning Republican by several points.
Rasmussen buys their phone number lists from Truck Nuts and Grizzly Wintergreen retailers.
@Steven L. Taylor:
More outrage!
I know, but you need to work on your snark and sarcasm game.
This is all nice, but GOP senators will not vote for impeachment even if there is tape with Trump making explicit quid pro quo offers. There just isn’t anything they won’t rationalize away. Tribe comes way before country or duty.
Steve
@Davebo:
Yup. I made this point in another thread. Simply making the request, in and of itself, would be illegal. Quid pro quo would add additional illegality, but it’s immaterial as to the illegality of making the request in the first place.
@steve:
I think this almost certainly true no matter what.
However, there comes a point where certain actions require the House, at least, to officially sanction Trump and to make the GOP to go on record.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Honestly, I am coming around to the idea of making everyone go on record as being worth it.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Official sanction needs to be accompanied by immediate penalties for defying subpoenas. I would hope formal impeachment would bring the means to overcome this administration’s open Contempt of Congress.
If it reaches that point, then the Democrats must use that as a campaign issue–how Republicans are excusing illegality and providing cover for their leader simply to stay in power…
Giuliani needs to be asked by reporters if any rat exists that he won’t f*ck. ‘Cause from where I’m watching, he doesn’t seem to have many boundaries there.
@Argon: That would the funniest damn thing I’ve seen in a while, cuz I bet he’d double down after originally denying it.
I have hope that if we come out of the Trump Administration learning anything, it’s what we need to fix. If we’re not all in concentration camps for speaking against Dear Leader, that is.
So very true…
Oh, I think we know more than that.
“The Washington Post has reported that the whistle-blower’s complaint concerns Trump’s interactions with Zelenskiy. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said in an interview with a Ukrainian news outlet, Hromadske, on Saturday that “Trump did not pressure Zelenskiy.” -Bloomberg”
And:
“The whistleblower didn’t actually hear the call. Buried in a recent CNN article noted by the Daily Wire’s Ashe Schow, “The whistleblower didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications,” adding “Instead, the whistleblower’s concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work.” That’s called gossip.
And….
the quid pro quo aspect has conveniently been dropped from the story.
And:
Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko:
“President Trump is interested, his advisor, [Rudolph] Giuliani, newspapers, Democrats, Republicans are interested in whether pressure had been put on Ukraine. I want to say that we are an independent state, we have our own secrets,” said Prystaiko.
“I know what the conversation was about and I think there was no pressure. There was talk, conversations are different, leaders have the right to discuss any problems that exist. This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on a lot of questions, including those requiring serious answers.”
As I pointed out the other day, we know that John Solomon has interviewed Ukrainian officials who indicated that the incoming Ukrainian administration approached the US with concerns over the previously shut down investigation.
It’s quite a different picture than the propagandists paint. And as I also pointed out the other day, Biden is the one who is going to get slaughtered by this story. And that appears to be happening real time.
When would someone like to discuss Hunter Bidens well known skills in private equity investing (snicker) and China?
@Guarneri:
You also seem to have ignored everything that I wrote about the issues with John Solomon’s opinion piece. Including the fact that Bloomberg had previously reported on a similiar discussion with the Ukrainian prosecutor who had talked about reaching out to Barr about a question abour taxes.
Again, citing an opinion piece from a propagandist as reportage isn’t a good look.
I love how the right has suddenly discovered that they have concerns about children of candidates getting into deals with foreign governments while turning a blind eye to all the actions of the Trump progeny. *snickers*
Or hey, how about that time that the Trump kids stole cancer donations to funnel them to their businesses?
But hey, they don’t give you the same tingly feelings in your nethers for powning the libs.
Aside: you also seem to fail to mention that the Ukranian foreign minister apparently wasn’t present on any of the calls either. If that’s enough to call the whistleblower’s account into question, shouldn’t the same hold true for that statement?
Looking forward to you thoughtful response…
BTW, still waiting to hear back on the bet for the 2020 election…
I see Mittens has issued a tweet.
Wake me up if he actually does anything.
@Guarneri: Any chance you could learn to hyperlink? It is 2019, after all.
@CSK:
Over at the Lawyers, Guns and Money blog, Erik Loomis wrote an essay about a Confederate General, with the quote from him “The white man will prefer tyranny to a polluted electorate.”
I think the Flight 93 essay in 2016 captured this sentiment nicely.
The Trumpists will prefer anything, literally anything, to the prospect of a world in which they are accountable to those they consider their inferiors.
To give him some credit, it’s not that he isn’t tech-savvy, but rather, he doesn’t want to include links to obviously laughable sources that are easy to debunk…I mean, he’s already ridiculed enough around here…
@Chip Daniels: as much of a complete failure as Trump is he’s going to get his significant turn out because he has actually delivered on one thing–he’s been a loudmouth racist asshole.
@mattbernius:
Thanks for quoting that, the passage wasn’t as definitive as I remembered. “Mostly unsuccessful” is not “failed.”
I think my comparison, however, still stands. However one wants to interpret “mostly unsuccessful” in terms of unknown possibilities, it’s still pretty clear that there is much more evidence with respect to this latest scandal with Ukraine. After all, the President himself and his personal lawyer (Guliani) have admitted to it.
@michael reynolds:
Just to be clear, Michael, if you reread what I actually wrote, I wasn’t talking about obstruction (for which there is strong evidence), but the criminal conspiracy (aka “collusion”) element.
Secondly, I have never written or claimed that Trump was “cleared” of anything – your frequent mischaracterizations of my comments are rather tedious at this point.
@Andy:
I tend to agree with this statement — provided we are talking about evidence that has made its way into the public.
I think Michael and I were both questioning how much evidence is the Russia investigation wasn’t able to be surfaced due to the obstruction issues mentioned above. But to some degree that’s arguing a hypothetical.
@Andy:
No, it does not. Did you read the report?
It says they did not find conspiracy, but that witnesses lied, destroyed evidence, and used encrypted communications…in other words obstructed. Left open is whether those efforts succeeded, or not. But to say they failed is incorrect.
@Chip Daniels:
‘Twas always thus, for which see Edmund Burke, 1790,
@Andy:
We should be clear that attempting to obstruct justice, regardless of whether one actually succeeds or fails, is a federal felony. The attempt alone, in and of itself, constitutes a crime.
@michael reynolds:
I don’t know if you happened to catch Lenore Taylor’s Guardian op-ed:
@HarvardLaw92: Hey! It’s great to see your username again!
@HarvardLaw92: Welcome back! I hope that you’ve been sufficiently amused by the mini-Trump on the other side of the Atlantic, now occupying the position of Prime Minister in the U.K.
@Andy:
I understand your point here, and in other times I would have considered it important. But there comes a point when Godzilla is trashing the city that you stop worrying about which of your weapons are environmentally friendly. Besides, who in that “polarized and propagandized public” do you think is left who still think that Democrats aren’t entirely power-crazed, but would change their minds if Trump were impeached in the House?
@DrDaveT: I don’t think that analogy quite works, though, because an impeachment attempt is almost certainly going to fail at removing Trump and, if it gets spun as a purely partisan effort, could not only damage the credibility of our institutions in the long term, but also make Trump’s removal in the short term via election harder. So, to make the Godzilla analogy more apt, the case against using the weapons would be both the long-term environmental damage and the risk that the weapons may actually just make Godzilla stronger.