- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 93,563
- Reaction score
- 81,644
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It Was a Corrupt Quid Pro Quo
Not only did the president hold up aid to Ukraine; he made its release contingent on a statement advancing his own political interests.
Despite what the Republicans are now trying to peddle - It was a quid pro quo, but not a corrupt quid pro quo - I believe the corrupt intent was so transparent that Americans will have no doubts that it was indeed an illegal shakedown.
I believe the Republicans - and Donald Trump - will rue their insistence of public/televised House hearings.
Not only did the president hold up aid to Ukraine; he made its release contingent on a statement advancing his own political interests.
11/6/19
Newly released testimony in the House impeachment inquiry shows in new detail how the Trump administration’s demands for a quid pro quo from the Ukrainian government operated. Ambassador Gordon Sondland, in an addendum to his original testimony released alongside his deposition transcript today, acknowledges telling a Ukrainian official that the country wouldn’t receive U.S. military aid without a statement about public corruption from President Volodymyr Zelensky. And other testimony and communications show that the statement had to specifically mention President Donald Trump’s personal political obsessions. “I now recall speaking with Mr. [Andrey] Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland said in his update, referring to an aide to the Ukrainian president. “Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself.” While Republicans initially defended Trump by insisting he had never tried to extract a quid pro quo from Ukraine, that defense has become untenable as a mountain of evidence, as well as an ill-advised outburst of honesty from the White House chief of staff, shows it has no basis. Now Trump’s defenders have adopted a new talking point: It was a quid pro quo, but not a corrupt quid pro quo.
Among the documents released today is a set of text messages between American and Ukrainian officials, discussing a statement that Ukrainian officials understood was essential to getting the administration to agree to a White House meeting. But that wasn’t enough for the Americans. Rudy Giuliani, Volker and Sondland both testified, insisted that any Ukrainian statement mention two specific things;
When Trump brought these ideas up on the July 25 call, it set off alarm bells at the White House. Yet even as the White House scrambled to cover up the call, Trump-administration officials in the field, like Volker and Sondland, continued to understand that the Burisma and hacking mentions were essential to the president. The Ukrainians tried to satisfy the Trump administration with a general anti-corruption statement, and Volker—whether approving of Trump’s desires or not—made clear that was not enough. The demolition of the binary between the good and the corrupt quid pro quo poses the latest political challenge to Trump and his defenders. The president has argued that everything he did was totally appropriate. Republicans in Congress have been slouching toward a compromise position, arguing that what Trump did was bad, but not impeachable. The testimony released today makes that argument even less appetizing than it already was—though it may still taste better than the alternatives.
- Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States, especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections, which in turn will prevent a recurrence of this problem in the future.
Despite what the Republicans are now trying to peddle - It was a quid pro quo, but not a corrupt quid pro quo - I believe the corrupt intent was so transparent that Americans will have no doubts that it was indeed an illegal shakedown.
I believe the Republicans - and Donald Trump - will rue their insistence of public/televised House hearings.