Month: December 2019

Delay in Impeachment

by Dave

House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi made a tactical decision not to immediately deliver the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, in hopes of adding pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to call witnesses.   Two key witnesses were former National Security Advisor John Bolton and Director of Office of Management and Budget, Mike Mulvaney.  I did not think either would actually appear if subpoenaed.

McConnell said on the floor: “Some House Democrats imply they are withholding the articles for some kind of ‘leverage’ so they can dictate the Senate process to senators. I admit, I’m not sure what ‘leverage’ there is in refraining from sending us something we do not want!”

Did Pelosi’s ploy fail?  Maybe not.  McConnell needs a majority of Senators to vote for the impeachment rules.  There are only 51 Republican senators.   So,  McConnell needs all Republicans to be in agreement on the rules.   He will be not be negotiating with Pelosi but members of his own party.   The Senate will re-convene on January 7, 2020 and there will intense pressure to get the impeachment done.   The outcome is a foregone conclusion.   The Republicans will claim victory, and the Democrats will claim a totally sham Senate trial.

Pelosi’s tactic may backfire, if this drags out.  Trump will not waste a minute in shifting attention to the Nancy Pelosi as the one who is obstructing justice.  As least his kind of justice.  It will be followed by a chorus of Republicans.

The evidence Trump is very strong.  But, this must be decided in November by voters.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

 

Trump’s Approval

by Dave

Trump’s approval rating has  increased from 39% on October 1 -13 to 45% on Dec 2 – 15 and numerous commentators have mentioned this as a sign of Americans disapproval of impeachment.  This is really hard to say, because other polls show a high percentage of Americans support the impeachment.   Polls always contain noise and no commentator likes to say the polls are inconclusive, but that may be the truth.   A 6% change over 3 months, is not particularly significant and I look at graphs to identify trends.   Gallup tries to pick a random representative sample but surveys are always imperfect.   The links provided below are the best ones I could find.  Time will tell if there really is a trend as a result of the House actions yesterday.

The country is divided.   Except for brief periods of extreme events, it has been this way for the past two decades.  A breakdown of approval ratings, shows a rock solid support by Republicans (89%) and a similar lack of approval by Democrats (8%).  This recent small uptick in approval ratings seem to be coming from independents, who show a 10% increase in approval ratings over the last 3 months, to 43%. approval.

The really striking feature of Trump’s approval ratings, as compared to the past 12 presidents from Truman to Obama, is how flat  (little variability)  his approval ratings have been to date.   He never gets above 50% or below 35% in the polls.   So, the variability as measured by Trump’s high to low is around 15%.  Obama’s was 25%.  George W. Bush ratings ranged from 90% to 25%, or an incredible 65%.   Bush became extremely popular right after the 9/11 attack in 2001, and then his popularity began to slide as the US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq.

Without any extreme event,  approval ratings often hit their  high mark  in about the first 100 days following inauguration of the first term.   Obama had his  highest approval ratings (62 to 67%) from January to May, 2000 in the honeymoon period.   G. W. Bush had a similar honeymoon period of  57 to 62%, however this approval rating soared immediately after 9/11.   Neither Clinton nor George H.W. Bush had their highest ratings during the  honeymoon period of their first term,  but both Reagan and Carter did.  What sent George H.W. Bush’s ratings through the roof (89%) was the beginning of the Iraq war.

Nixon’s approval rating was generally quite high (above 50%) even though the perception is that he was an unpopular president due to the numerous anti-war rallies.  He was re-elected in Nov 1972 in a landslide election, and definitely enjoyed high approval of 67% in the first week of the honeymoon period.  The Watergate scandal galvanized public opinion in October 1973  with the battle for the tapes and the  firing of  the Special Prosecutor Cox, termed the “Saturday Night Massacre.”  Nixon’s approval ratings sank to below 30% in October  and never recovered in the next 10 months before his resignation.

Returning now to Trump’s flattish (trendless)  ratings and coming events,  In January,  the Senate will acquit Trump of the two articles of impeachment.  The headlines from the New York Times, Washington Post and all the print media that Trump hates so much , will have in big bold letters “The Senate Acquits Trump.”   This should help fuel his rallies.  Whether this translates into a boost in ratings, we shall see.

If Trump can sustain  approval ratings above “the line”  (50%) I will immediately concede that impeachment boosted his approval.   Likewise, if the Gallup approval  ratings fall in the usual range (35 to 45%), then the conclusion should be that impeachment had no discernible affect.   Sinking below 35% is rare, but it could happen, particularly if the Democrat campaign intensifies.

A couple caveats:  (1)  It takes time to do polling, so the period to watch is 4 to 8 weeks after the acquittal and  (2) I use Gallup polls for consistency.   I’ve included a link for the 538 website, which compares many surveys, and gives each of them a score.  Trump seems to do better by a couple of percentage points, when surveys include likely or registered voters.   I would think these surveys are better indicators of results of the 2020 election.

A final caveat is that surveys only ask if one approves of the president’s performance.  The 2020 election will give voters a chance to select which of presidential candidate they feel would best lead the country.   Obviously, the big unknown is the registered voters who do not vote. Also, to win an election, you have to be get a majority of votes in the swing states (PA, FL, MI, AZ, etc), not necessarily be the most popular in the country.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

Gallup poll 

(you can select various presidents, and their support from Republicans, Democrats and Independents)

Wikipedia – Presidential Approval Ratings (historical) 

Wikipedia = Presidential Approval Rating (Trump)

538 Website

(shows about an even split on those for and against impeachment.

 

Truth Matters 2

by Dave

Wow. What a day!  Trump’s letter to Pelosi sent on Dec 17, 2019 repeats Politifact  “Lie of the Year” for 2019 and also the lie that I thought should have won (my personal favorite).  It adds some “golden oldies”  well known to be false.

Here’s the lie that got  Trump the 2019 award:

“…  so-called whistleblower who started this entire hoax with a false report of the phone call that bears no relationship to the actual phone call that was made.”

As so carefully analyzed by Politifact, the whistleblower’s report coincides very well with what the transcript says.

Trump’s lie is embedded in another misleading statement, that the White House was denied the right to call or  cross examine witnesses.  CNN reports:

Allowing the subject of an impeachment inquiry to call witnesses or present counter evidence is not required in either the Constitution or House rules. Furthermore, the House voted in late October to allow Mr. Trump’s lawyers to cross examine witnesses once the impeaching hearing moved to Judiciary Committee. But the White House declined to participate. If the House successfully votes to impeach a federal official, the Senate then holds trial. The impeachment rules in the upper chamber do offer the impeached person some rights.

But, this letter also contains my personal choice the lie of the year, as follows:

You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars.

That’s exactly the line Trump planned to use to gain the support of the Americans in 2020.  Except he would add,  “This is based on an ongoing investigation by the President Zelensky of Ukraine as announced in 2019” if the whistleblower hadn’t ruined his plans.  You know what – he’ll probably still use it.   He can say that this is based on an investigation by Rudy Giuliani or an  OANN investigation or Attorney Joe DiGenova research., passed on to the FBI.

Well, of course Rep. Pelosi knows this is  total rubbish, because the firing of Ukraine’s General Prosecutor Shokin was very well explained  in the House Judiciary Committee report as follows:

Similarly, there is no legitimate basis for President Trump to claim former Vice President Biden behaved improperly in calling for the removal of Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin. When he called for Mr. Shokin’s removal, then-Vice President Biden acted in accordance with and in furtherance of an official United States policy and the broad consensus of various European countries and the International Monetary Fund.615 Indeed, in late 2015, the International Monetary Fund threatened Ukraine that it would not receive $40 billion in international assistance unless Mr. Shokin was removed.616 Vice President Biden was subsequently enlisted by the State Department to call for Mr. Shokin’s removal—and in late 2015 and early 2016, he announced that the United States would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Mr. Shokin was dismissed.617 Ultimately, in March 2016, Ukraine’s parliament voted to dismiss Mr. Shokin.618 Moreover, multiple witnesses confirmed that the removal of Mr. Shokin would have increased the likelihood that Burisma would be investigated for corruption, not the opposite, given that Mr. Shokin was widely considered to be both ineffective and corrupt.619 Any suggestion that former Vice President Biden called for Mr. Shokin’s removal in order to stop an investigation of Burisma, the company whose board Hunter Biden sat on, is inconsistent with these facts.620

I’ve left in the footnotes 615 to 620, which are references to documents in the report.

The letter is nasty, with numerous false or misleading statements, including:

Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party’s impeachment effort has been going on for two and a half years

Just the opposite is true.  The 2 1/2 years is the Mueller investigation, which was initiated by the Justice Department.  After the report was completed, the Speaker was reluctant to begin impeachment proceedings.  Yes, other Democrats felt the impeachment case was strong, but Pelosi held out.  The obstruction of Congress would have occurred in either the Russian or Ukraine case.  With the Ukraine scandal, Trump really handed Pelosi a much more straight forward violation of the constitution.

And Trump adds one of his all time favorite lies:

Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to the present day, even going so far as to fraudulently make up, out of thin air, my conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine and read this fantasy language to Congress as though it were said by me.

Fact checkers know this as the “short version” of the big lie.  The longer version of the lie, told at Trump rallies, is that Schiff first invents the conversation, then Trump reveals to the public the real transcript exposing Schiff as a liar.  Great at rallies, but twice as false as the shorter version.  I call the longer version, the comic book one, because it not only has a villian (Schiff) but a hero to boot (Trump).     From the New York Times critique of the letter:   In a congressional hearing in September, Mr. Schiff said he was conferring the “essence” of the conversation that was meant to be partially “parody.” His account veered from the transcript in chronology and details at points, but it generally tracked with the transcript’s version of what Mr. Trump said on the call.”  The longer version is absolutely wrong, because Schiff’s summary of the conversation was done after the transcript was released in September.

The tone of the letter is angry and inappropriate for anyone holding high office.   It is taking aim at elected representatives, who come to Congress to represent their constituents.  It attacks the FBI.    The critical information is the letter has been proven to be untrue.

The letter was characterized by Rep. Pelosi as “sick.”  The headlines in the New York Times,  “Trump’s 6-page Diatribe Belittles Impeachment as an “Attempted Coup,”  The polemics are disgraceful.  The lies are consistent with the last 3 years of Trump’s presidency.  See link for the letter.  There are dozens of analyses of the letter on the internet.

I would just say it is sad when we have a president with so little regard for the truth.

Please don’t count on Facebook postings, Twitter,  Fox and OANN commentators, Trump rallies  and other sources for factual news, particularly on impeachment.   These are sources of misleading and frequently false information.

I invoke the Daniel Moynihan admonition: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”   If we start to get straight the facts, our differences are likely to be less.

I also like to recent comment Judge Amy Berman Jackson, ‘”If people don’t have the facts, democracy doesn’t work.”

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

There is a lot of good fact checking website as I list under the links.

Letter-From-President-Trump-Final

Politifact website

CNN Fact Checking

Factcheck.org

 

 

 

 

Truth Matters

by Dave

I believe in truth.  Lying from high officials can do great harm.  They use social media to rapidly spread lies.  Political parties use lies to increase their base.

Politifact 2019 lie of the year goes to Donald Trump.  He is now the four time award winner (2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019).  Yes, I was unhappy that he did not get the award in 2018,  but I suspect they wanted to draw attention how very harmful lies  from anonymous sources or obscure websites that go viral  on social media.   The headline for the 2018 lie was: “Online smear machine tries to take down Parkland students” and it relates to the protests movement after 17 students were gunned down at a high school in Florida.  “Claiming some of the students on TV after #Parkland are actors is the work of a disgusting group of idiots with no sense of decency,” wrote Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on Twitter on Feb. 20.  Kudos to Rubio and others who quickly denounced this lie.  Politifact did  not attributed to any one person, but to obscure unnamed  websites.  Politifact names  OANN commentator Graham Ledger for broadcasting the theory that students were “crisis actors” and Donald Trump, Jr. liked a tweet stemming from the Ledger commentary.  It is the commentators on  OANN (Outside Any Normal News) that conspiracy theorists find an audience.  Anything for a rating, right!

Ok, back to 2019 Lie of the Year:  ” Donald Trump’s claim whistleblower got Ukraine call ‘almost completely wrong'” won the award.  There are a whole slew of lies, Trump has originated or re-tweeted,  on virtually every topic,

But this one seems to be one of his all time favorites.  According to Politifact:

Since the Sept. 26 release of the whistleblower complaint about his call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump has insisted more than 80 times that the whistleblower’s account is fake, fraudulent, incorrect, “total fiction,” “made up,” and “sooo wrong.” (sounds like Trump)

It was likely a tough choice, because Donald Trump  lies continuously.  I liked the 2017 lie of the year:   Russian election interference is a ‘made-up story’  or in 2016: Fake news.  Trump is not considered the source, but the enabler of this lie.    The 2015 award is for  campaign misstatements of Donald Trump.    President Obama also won an award for a lie in 2013: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it”  but I think the real difference is, that he apologized for this lie.

My choice of the lie for 2019 would be: “Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its prosecutor …. the prosecutor said he was forced out for leading a corruption probe into Hunter Biden’s company. … Democrats want to impeach President Trump for discussing this investigation with Ukraine’s President.”   which was part of an ad campaign for Trump’s re-election.   It is very clever, because the real lie is in the information not provided.  The prosecutor was corrupt and had sidelined the Burisma investigation,   The pressure to fire Prosecutor Shokin came from the US, IMF  and EU leaders.  See links below.

The Washingon Post calculated  Trump has lied 15,413 just in the last 3 years since becoming president.  It looks like the lying is going to get worse (hard to imagine).   See last link.

Wake up America, – We are much better than this.  (Elijah Cummings)

Stay tuned,

Dave

10 things Donald Trump got wrong about impeachment in 2019, fact-checked

The silence of the year: What did Hunter Biden do for Burisma?

Lie of the Year 2019: Donald Trump’s claim whistleblower got Ukraine call ‘almost completely wrong’

A look back at Lie of the Year, 2009 to 2018

President Trump has made 15,413 false or misleading claims over 1,055 days

 

Impeachment Trial in the Senate

by Dave

By the end of next week, the Articles of Impeachment will be approved and sent to the Senate.  The trial of impeachment in the Senate will likely be confined to two to three weeks  in January 2020.   It will be run by Republicans and made to help Donald Trump.   In fact, at times, it may seem an impeachment trial is  a honorable exercise, to undo the damage from the House of Representatives.   It is a foregone conclusion that Trump will be acquitted of two articles against the him.  The voting in the Senate will be nearly entirely along party lines – meaning Trump will be acquitted.   I am 100% certain of this.

After the acquittal vote, there will be a moment of party unity among  Republicans.   Their speeches will be similar,  using such phrases as “totally exonerated” and “proved to all that the charges were baseless.”   They will in the process vilify Rep. Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.    The Democrats acted deplorably and despicably.  The only reason for the impeachment was because they knew none of their candidates could beat him in November.   At least that will be the spiel – are we that naive?

There is intense discussion right now among Republicans on how to make the trial in the Senate one of “vindication and exoneration.”   Trump sees this as a time to glorify the achievements of the Republican party and vilify the Democrats.  It is as if you went to a ball game, and one team could pick the umpire.    This is free time on television, so why not?  I won’t watch much.

For me, it will be a sad day.  It will say to all future presidents that as long as you hold the majority in the Senate, then Article 2 of the Constitution doesn’t really apply.   I agree the bar for impeachment must be high.  The evidence must be solid.  The conduct of the president must clearly show he committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Each of the Articles has been proven:  I.  Trump approved military aid for Ukraine conditional on announcements of two investigations to help him win elections and II.  He obstructed justice by refusing to let key witnesses testify at the impeachment inquiry.

Obviously, Trump has the authority to veto military assistance.   He also could have made an announcement, that he would attach conditions to the aid.    He did neither of these.  Instead, he had his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani and Ambassador Gordon Sondland to set up the “announcements” which would help support false accusations against Joe Biden.

It will be a sad day for the idea of elections free of outside interference.  It will be a sad day for the role of Congress to investigate wrong doing by the president, because the subpoenas now don’t mean much.  Trump and Republicans can celebrate his “exoneration” but he will forever be remembered in the history books, as the fourth president to be impeached by Congress.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Articles of Impeachment

by Dave

The Articles of Impeachment as a pdf document can be open and saved in the link shown below.  It’s only 9 pages.   Many have commented on the narrow focus of the articles is likely  to keep them simple for the public to understand.  I agree but  I suspect there are other reasons.  Due to the Republican majority in the Senate, it is a foregone conclusion that  Senate will vote to acquit the President on all charges.   It’s just the way a political trial goes. If there had been more articles, there would have been more acquittals.  The Senate vote will be a sad day, as Donald Trump will be celebrating his victory over the “Dems”  as broadcasted over Fox News,  it will reinforce the idea that all this was one big “witch hunt.”  The vote will just political, as the evidence makes a powerful case for Trump to be found guilty.

The inquiry proceeded rapidly.  Adam Schiff made a good point, that to work through the courts to compel appearances by the witnesses and production of documents would likely have given Donald Trump an extra year to continue the abuse of power.    A second reason is political.  Democratic candidates such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders need to be free to campaign and not held captive to impeachment proceedings.   Donald Trump had started with big rallies in the swing states, such as Florida,  while Democrats are focused on the primary races.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

articles of impeachment

Who is telling the truth in the impeachment hearings

by Dave

Politicians lie.  They all do it.  But they also get caught doing it.  That’s the purpose of fact checking organizations.  Trump supporters have a lot to explain, and their defense of Trump includes a lot that is just not true.  I encourage my followers to fact check what they read here, and it really isn’t hard. Also, “main stream media” such as CNN and the print media, including  the New York Times and Washington Post are very reliable sources of information.  The House Intelligence Committee puts an incredible amount of raw information,  i.e. transcripts of testimony and documents on their website.  It is hard to keep up with all of this, but it is out there.

It is very consistent for Trump to launch a counter offensive attack on impeachment, by supporting and often retweeting  statements by Republican senators, which are without foundation, when his actions are indefensible.

Here is a short list of statements  which are absolute rubbish:

Question 1: Did President Barack Obama immediately fire all Bush-appointed ambassadors “the day he was elected office”?

FALSE

As is the custom, Obama immediately replaced most — not all — of Bush’s politically appointed ambassadors. Obama did not remove any of the career appointees to ambassadorships.

Sources:  Factcheck.org and politifact.com

Question arises because Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was recalled after a smear campaign was launch against her by people close to Donald Trump, including Rudy Giuliani and Representative Pete Sessions.  There is a lot more to this story, but Trump got caught before he could put a political appointee into the Ambassador position.

Question 2:   Is it true that several news organizations reported that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election. Senator Kennedy states, “It’s been well documented in the Financial Times, in Politico, in The Economist, in the Washington Examiner, even on CBS, that the prime minister of Ukraine, the interior minister, the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, the head of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption League, all meddled in the election on social media and otherwise,”

A:   From Politifact.com:

FALSE

We found that these articles paint a picture of Ukrainian leaders fearful of Russia and of Trump’s comments that took a more conciliatory stance on Russian aggression. The news coverage shows Ukrainians preferred Hillary Clinton because she was tough on Russia. However, the articles don’t show a vast, top-down approach ordered to boost Clinton.

Kennedy mentioned The Economist multiple times. The Economist’s U.S. editor John Prideaux told us: “We are a bit puzzled by Sen. Kennedy citing us to the effect that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 elections.”

Republicans frequently mention a 2017 Politico article, which focused on the work of a Democratic political contractor who tried to dig up dirt on Trump and his advisers. We vetted it and found that the GOP has used its findings selectively.

Question 3:  Is Sen. John Kennedy similar accusation true?  The Senator says former Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko “actively worked for Secretary Clinton.

FALSE

Answer by Politifact.com – see link.

His sources are  completely lacking.   It didn’t get the “Pants on Fire” designation, but it should.

Question 4:  What about the 2017 Politico story that shows the Sen. Kennedy statements are true?

FALSE

A:  “The article did not state that the Ukrainian government conspired with the Clinton campaign or the DNC,” said Melissa Cooke, a booking manager for Politico, in an email. “It also emphasized that the acts of Ukrainian officials to raise questions about Trump were not comparable to Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, and reported that the then-Ukrainian government was trying to make amends with then-President-elect Trump.”

Senator John Kennedy is a Republican from Louisiana.

Question 5: Is Trump’s statement true: “They never thought, Dan, that I was going to release that call, and I really had no choice because Adam Schiff made up a call,” Trump said Nov. 15. “He said the president said this, and then he made up a call.”

FALSE 

Trump has repeated this statement numerous times.  Schiff already had the released memo, and was just giving a “dramatized synopsis” of key points.  See link.

—-

I’m stopping at 5 false statements for now.  For more false statements,  please follow this link to politifact.org   (Fact-checking Impeachment Claims) .    One of the few true claims came surprisingly from Fox News, and their legal analyst who stated it is perfectly legal to have witnesses testify in private.  I’ve included this link at the end.

There will be an enormous number of false statements, coming from Rep. Jim Jordan,  Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Attorney diGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing (see link below), Sen. John Kennedy from Louisiana, and of course, Donald Trump.  I encourage everyone to check out these links and dig in more to get the truth.  It doesn’t come from Facebook or Twitter, that’s for sure.

In the coming few weeks, the false statements will increase.   Republicans know when the impeachment goes to the Senate, they have the votes to acquit Trump.   It is highly likely they will not only acquit him, but cast the Democrats as the true villains,  is concocting false evidence against Trump, because they can’t  deal with their loss in 2016 or because they can’t  win the election

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

Sen.  Kennedy claims that Ukrainian President Poroshenko actively worked for Clinton is False

What we know about the Politico story at the heart of a Ukraine conspiracy theory

Did Obama Fire All Bush-Appointed Ambassadors?

Donald Trump gets Ukraine phone memo timeline backwards

Exclusive: Giuliani Ally Pete Sessions Was Eyed for Top Slot in Ukraine

Fox News analyst correct: Impeachment inquiry is following rules by questioning witnesses in private

Other Fact checking resources:

AP FACT CHECK: Trump and the people he forgets he knew

Politifact.com

Republicans Cherry-Pick Facts on Impeachment

Factcheck.org

Trump + Trade

by Dave

I just thought the link below really said everything.  Trade is one area which Trump has nearly complete control.  Except every time he slaps on a tariff against a country, they retaliate with tariffs on the US.   It is a “lose-lose” policy as the tariffs are passed through to the consumer.    Nothing positive ever seems to emerge from Trump’s actions.  He has threaten Brazil and Argentina with tariffs, because their currencies are weak. A lot of this is not particularly rational.

Trump was handed a reasonable and rational approach to China’s violation of trade agreements.  It was called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.    But, it unified  our Asian, Canadian  and South American  trading partners to  force compliance of fair trade with China.   But it was long and complex,  It was also negotiated by President Obama.   So, the US withdrew from the agreement.

Withdrawing from international agreements, and going it alone, may look like it’s putting US interest first.  Actually, it puts us last.    We’ve lost our leadership role in the UN, NATO and the Paris Accords on Climate Change.  Because Trump wants all the glory, all he can do is eliminate regulations and agreements.   And disrupt free trade with tariffs.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Link

Trade is the one area Trump has complete control

 

 

What Trump wanted

by Dave

Sondland testified:

“He [Zelenskiy]  had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.”

That’s really huge admission.

Dr. Pamela Karlan, the Stanford law professor testifying today, got it so perfectly right, what Sondland’s statement implied.  It was a smear campaign, not for the FBI or the Department of Justice, but for commentators on Fox news and Trump campaign rallies.   Those dealing in alt-right sleaze conspiracies were all primed and ready to go.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

CNN (Nov 21, 2019) The huge Gordon Sondland revelation almost everyone missed

Kudos to Chris Cillizza of CNN.

 

More on the Sondland call that may not exist

by Dave

I was glad that the House Intel Committee also raised doubts on the existence of a  second September call between Sondland and the President.    In their December 3, 2019 report, it is stated:

“A call on September 9, which would have occurred in the middle of the night, is at odds with the weight of the evidence and not backed up by any records the White House was willing to provide Ambassador Sondland.”

Just heard CNN saying the same thing .  News travels fast!

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

 

Ukraine Scandal – the call that perhaps never occurred

by Dave

Nov 27 (Washington Post):

“This is Ambassador Sondland speaking to me,” Trump said outside the White House last week, looking down to read notes he’d taken of Sondland’s testimony. “Here’s my response that he just gave: ‘I want nothing. . . . I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.’ ”

Seems Trump feels  his defense is ironclad, because it is based on the sworn testimony of Ambassador Sondland.  If the Democrats are going to accept everything else that Sondland testified to, as the truth and was incriminating, then it stands to reason that they have to accept his recollection of this phone call.

I don’t agree that everything that came from Sondland was the truth.  The other phone calls could  be corroborated.   This “September 9 call” is suspicious and  I think evidence is mounting that the call did not occur.    The White House could immediately dispel this idea, as they have the phone records.  The State Department has Sondland records and will not provide them to Sondland.  Note Sondland is still the Ambassador to EU.

The Republicans on the House Intel Committee kept after Ambassador Sondland to be more detailed on the “no quid pro quo” call.  Sondland said that because the State Department would not allow him access to his records and he wasn’t much of a note taker, he could not be sure of the details.

It is very possible that the Sept 6 to 9 time period, just one phone call was made to Trump.  In this phone call, he stated that there was “no quid pro quo” but then said what was specifically required to release the aid.   An announcement by the Chief Prosecutor was not enough.   It had to be from Zelenskiy.  I think in Trump’s mind, he was on the winning side.  The worse the fighting was with the Ukraine, the more likely that he would comply with Trump’s demands.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump doesn’t email.  I think by using 3 amigos (Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland and Rick Perry) as plus  Rudy Giuliani, to the Ukraine, Trump thought he could by-pass normal Foreign Service protocol.  Of course, it meant getting rid of our US Ambassador to Ukraine, Maria Yovanovitch, because she had three undesirable qualities:  honesty, intelligence and experience, and wasn’t going to be a good fit in the dirt seeking political  missions of Donald Trump, helping him get re-elected.  See CNN link.

The links below are very compelling.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Link:

Just Security:  Here’s the Proof that the Quid Pro Quo call never occurred

Washington Post Witness testimony and records raise questions about account of Trump’s ‘no quid pro quo’ call

CNN  Opinion (Nov 17)  What Rudy and ‘Three Amigos’ were up to

Ambassador Sondland – Appeasing the boss

by Dave

I listened to Ambassador Gordon Sondland and found him very straight forward, honest and sincere.  He confirmed his cell phone call to  Trump on July 26, 2019, while having lunch in a restaurant in Ukraine.  His testimony highlighted he understood how Trump operated – as the call was very short and to the point.  It was an all good news for Trump as he let Trump know that the Ukraine President would do anything Trump asked.   But there was more to Soldland’s “special assignments” with the Stockholm brawl.   This probably flew under the radar, except for those in the hip-hop world.   See CNN link.

Sondland was the founder and CEO of Provenance Hotel chains, which owns 19 hotels across the US.  He was many ways, like Trump, because his company  created distinct and classy hotels,  13 of which  received reader-choice awards from Conde Nast.  He is a very generous man,  Sondland made contributions to the Oregon community, including a $1 million endowment to the Portland Art Museum, where he served as its chairman from 2009 to 2011, to allow free admission for children. He had limited governmental work before Donald Trump nominated him as Ambassador to the EU.  He was nominated by Trump and confirmed as Ambassador in  July 2018.  See links below.

Since Ukraine is not part of the EU normally Ambassador Sondland would not be involved in US foreign relations with this country.  “President Trump has not only honored me with the job of being the US ambassador to the EU, but he’s also given me other special assignments, including Ukraine,” he told a Ukraine media outlet in July (see CNN link).

The impeachment inquiry heard testimony from Ambassador Sondland and David Holmes.  David Holmes is serving as Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine.  He testified at the House Intel Committee on November 21.   Holmes testimony pretty much confirmed what others were saying – that Trump was looking for political dirt on the Biden’s and the 2016 election.

Adam Schiff was laser focused on the Ukraine scandal and Holmes testimony was critical, as he overheard Trump on Sondland’s cell phone.    Sondland contributed one million dollars to Trump’s Inauguration – not to his campaign.    Smart business man to wait until there is a victor before making a contribution.

Trump doesn’t give a shit about the Ukraine, just winning the election

Trump figured Ambassador Sondland to the EU would be his “go to” man.  (The Atlantic Monthy agrees with me and the link is shown at the bottom).    However, Sondland loyalty did not extend to ignoring a subpoena or pleading the Fifth in front of the committee.   Ambassador  Sondland called Trump on July 26, a day after Trump’s call to Zelensky.  As reported by CBS News (link is provided at bottom with transcript of the David Holmes  testimony):

Holmes said he was sitting near Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, at a restaurant in Kiev and could hear him speaking to Mr. Trump, who said, “So, he’s gonna do the investigation?” referring to Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Holmes testified that Sondland replied, “He’s gonna do it” and added that Zelensky would do “anything you ask him to.”

Holmes testified that the call was also unusual because such a call with the president would generally take place in a more secure setting, not on a cell phone. He noted that at least two of the three mobile networks in Ukraine are owned by Russian companies, and the U.S. generally assumes mobile communications in Ukraine are being monitored.

This followed by a comment by Sondland that Trump doesn’t give a shit about Ukraine, just winning the election.

Stockholm Street Brawl: the bizarre  saga of Mr. Rakim Mayers enters the impeachment inquiry

But the overheard conversation  delved into some really critical international crisis,  the infamous  Stockholm street brawl.  (Yes, I am being facetious!).

The quick summary:  A rapper from the US by the name of A$AP Rocky (Rakim Mayers) and 3 of his group  got into an altercation as they were walking on the street in Sweden on June 30,  2019.  Mayers’s group is on a hot streak and were in the middle of a European concert tour.    Mayers was arrested by authorities, totally messing up his European tour.    Mayers’ lawyer said he  acted only in self defense.  (see link).  Almost immediately,  this street brawl went viral, with hashtag #JusticeforRocky with various clips of the fight on network station TMZ.  In court,  Mayers was accused of assault against  Jafari  Mustafa who was beaten, kicked, and cut with broken bottles and taken to the hospital.   Mayers plead innocent and lost in  court  The court ruled, based on the injuries that this wasn’t self defense.    Mayers got off very lightly with a fine of $1,270, served no additional  jail time and could go home.

And you have to be thinking, how could this Stockholm street brawl possibly get to the level of the President of the US and Ambassador to the EU, when he was on a special assignment to the Ukraine (helping Trump dig up dirt on the Bidens).  And then into testimony in the House Impeachment inquiry.

From June 30 to late July, 2019,    things really snowballed.   Trump on July 19 said First Lady Melania Trump first brought Rocky’s detention to his attention. At the time, he said: “Many, many members of the African-American community have called me, friends of mine, and said, ‘Could you help?’ So I personally don’t know A$AP Rocky, but I can tell you he has a lot of support from the African-American community in this country. And when I say African-American, I can really say from everybody in this country, because we are all one.”  Kanya West and Kim Kardashian husband  got involved.   Mayers family contacted Al Sharpton, obviously to turn up the heat.  Congressman Adriano Espillant was a Democrat from Mayers district, so he contacted the State Department, which in turn contacted the Embassy in Sweden.   This is pretty routine if an American is in jail for some time in a foreign country,  particularly if it is a hostile country,  just to get the basic facts.  But, my God this is Stockholm, where the justice system is just fine.   Contrary to reports, Mayers was doing just fine in jail.

Being this story was all over the Internet and TMZ, the entertainment network,  Trump sent his Presidential Envoy for Hostage Negotiations, Robert O’Brien to Stockholm.  There wasn’t really much to do, as the  On top of that, Sweden was warned that there would be serious consequences if Mayers was not released.

— Sondland:  Play the race card

Now back to what happened on July 26 as David Holmes recounted his lunch with Sondland.   David Holmes testified at the impeachment inquiry that Sondland told Trump that Rocky “should have plead guilty.”  Sondland then told Trump that Sweden “should have released him on your word” and advised him to “let [Rocky] get sentenced, play the racism card, give him a ticker-tape when he comes home.”

Note this is Amb. Sondland talking.   We don’t know what Trump said.  It is Sondland first stroking Trump’s ego by telling him that Sweden should have upended their legal system for Trump, letting the 6 million dollar man go (it would be also illegal).  Then he tells Trump, he could still come out the hero against the obvious Swedish racism, winning votes at home after the trial.  Six million dollars Mayers, with a $1200 fine and no jail time for being found guilty of assault, doesn’t get a ticker tape parade.

I think what Trump saw in Gordon Sondland someone who understood marketing.  Everything done to make the President Trump look good.  What happen to Mayers wasn’t important, it was the perception of power and  Trump could bully world leaders. In this case, to free Mayers would require the Prime Minister of Sweden to violate their laws of non-interference.

Links:

Wikipedia Gordon Sondland

CNN: Gordon Sondland, hotelier turned diplomat, wasn’t always a Trump supporter

Wikipedia:  ASAP Rocky

Atlantic Monthly: As the Rich Get Richer, the Ambassadors Get Worse

Atlantic Monthly Gordon Sondland’s Damning—But Delayed—Testimony

Swedish PM warns Trump rapper ASAP Rocky won’t get special treatment

CNN: Trump blasts Sweden PM over ASAP Rocky

Daily Show (pretty funny) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjVUgIaSQdE