Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, October 17, 2019

Yes, Mick Mulvaney said, Mr. Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine, money that had been appropriated by Congress and was desperately needed to resist Russian aggression, in order to induce the government of Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate a conspiracy theory about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 2016 election. In other words, the president was using U.S. aid as leverage to advance his personal political agenda.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The chief of staff's declaration represented an about-face in the White House defense on the Ukraine affair. Until now, Mr. Trump's main argument has been that the whistleblower who described his July 25 phone call with Mr. Zelensky and his subordination of U.S. diplomacy to his reelection campaign had gotten it all wrong: There was no quid pro quo. But testimony to Congress by half a dozen present and former State Department and White House officials, and a rough transcript of the phone call, have fully confirmed the whistleblower's memo.

The new defense outlined by Mr. Mulvaney: Okay, we did it. So what?

The chief of staff argued that every administration seeks concessions from foreign governments in exchange for aid or meetings with the president. That's true " but the difference here is that Mr. Trump was demanding help for his personal political cause, not for the United States.

Just to be perfectly clear, why in the wide wide World of Sports should every American citizen who believes that the presidency of Donald Trump is already quite suspect - due to Russia's interference in shaping the opinions of 2016 voters - meekly stand by as Trump openly solicits non-existent, made-up conspiratorial disinformation that he will use to negatively influence voter's opinions of his opponents going into the 2020 presidential election?

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-17 05:41 PM | Reply

There is still more to learn about the Ukraine affair. But this much is now undisputed: Mr. Trump conditioned U.S. defense aid, as well as a visit to the White House, on the Ukrainian president's help in providing him with political dirt.

It was a quid pro quo. It was corrupt. And Mr. Trump is now confessing it, in the cynical expectation that Republicans will not hold him accountable. If he is right, our political system will be grievously damaged.

It already has been and continues to be damaged. The saddest part is that so many naked partisans truly don't seem to care as long as their side benefits from the larceny.

#2 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-17 05:44 PM | Reply

People are still buying into this crap?

President Trump's legal team wrote a letter last week to Pelosi and various committee chairmen informing them they "have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans" by statute and by the Constitution, the letter stated.

"In other words, basic due process".

You won't find that in the MSM though. I know exactly how it feels to be silenced, and it's just like this.

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-10-17 07:05 PM | Reply

For the love of God anyone can read the transcript of the phone call. These paid jackals just hope you don't. Trump must be laughing all the way to re-election.

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-10-17 07:13 PM | Reply

"In other words, basic due process".

People are buying into the crap written in that letter?

The target of the grand jury investigation has no right to participate in the process. The target has no right to counsel to participate, no right to cross examine witnesses, no right to subpoena documents or witnesses, no right to present evidence. In fact, the target has no right to even know of the existence of the proceeding.

Due process kicks in at trial not before.

#5 | Posted by et_al at 2019-10-17 08:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

When did confessing to a crime suddenly make you guilty?

Heliumz

#6 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-10-17 08:28 PM | Reply

The latest lie is the truth

- heliumz

#7 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-10-17 08:30 PM | Reply

Trump must be laughing all the way to re-election.
#4 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

Yeah, no.

He's -------- his pants and malania had now refused to clean up after him.

It's getting messy.

#8 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-17 08:38 PM | Reply

#6 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses

This is the trial. The House is going to vote to impeach. Please keep up.

#9 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-10-17 09:23 PM | Reply

This is the trial. The House is going to vote to impeach. Please keep up.
#9 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

So it's NOW a trial, but the House has yet to vote to impeach?

Hmmmmm.

You should try that again.

#10 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-17 09:26 PM | Reply

#9 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

Constitutionally illiterate.

HRat, I know that you're a learned fellow who often talks about subjects and things of which I have no clue, but on this topic, you need to actually read how the impeachment process is designed and stop believing though who lie to you every day.

Cliff notes: Impeachment is a two part process where the House acts as a grand jury and decides whether to "indict" a high government official for specific "high crimes and misdemeanors" - which doesn't mean exactly as it sounds. There is no need for an actual statutory crime behind an article of impeachment. The details are like et_al recites in post 5.

If the House votes to pass any Article of Impeachment then a trial commences in the Senate, where the House acts as the prosecution and the accused has his own defense with all the attendant rights you refer to above. But only at trial. Just like with a grand jury, an accused has no rights to do anything, they don't even have a right to know they are being investigated, although that's impossible due to the nature of impeachment.

#11 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-17 09:32 PM | Reply

"believing those who lie to you every day."

#12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-17 09:33 PM | Reply

You won't find that in the MSM though. I know exactly how it feels to be silenced, and it's just like this.

People ignoring you because you're spouting nonsense isn't "being silenced".

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-17 09:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Scret witnesses. Secret testimony. Impeachment in the works for a transcript anyone can read that totally exonerates Trump while the people who stole millions attack him, but is totally changed in MSM. This is far better than the RussiaHoax coup attempt. Oh wait, you probably still believe in that. And the yellow vests where started by Putin. Brexit supporters don't exit, those are all Russian 'bots. Hamilton68Dashboard got sued for that because because all the people they claimed where 'bots where real, and the dumb neo-cons that helped start the Iraq war didn't realize that libel laws are different in England.

But you didn't hear that in the five billionaire media.

#14 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-10-17 09:35 PM | Reply

a transcript anyone can read that totally exonerates Trump -- HELIUMRAT

Please do expound upon this contention.

#15 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-17 09:38 PM | Reply

Hey Tony, if you get slandered every day by insane people, you have a right to face your accuser. Remember Mattress-Girl? That never went to trial. What happened to the guy? His life was ruined.

#16 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-10-17 09:41 PM | Reply

Tony, you have a point but this is an obvious coup attempt by the people that are actually guilty. They are hiding their "witnesses" and the names change every day. More come out and then vanish? No cop on Earth would take tthis to a judge.

I get angry when peoples civil rights are violated, and this is the biggest one in my lifetime. Sure, it's Trump, but as the ACLU says that doesn't make a difference.

#17 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-10-17 10:38 PM | Reply

but this is an obvious coup attempt by the people that are actually guilty.

No, moron, it's not.

Seriously, how ---- braindead are people?

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-17 10:46 PM | Reply

Civil Rights violation?

Please expound.

#19 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-17 10:51 PM | Reply

The Buffoon's civil rights are not being violated. He has no civil rights vis a vis the impeachment investigation, no different than any other accused facing a grand jury.

Do you think the Buffoon should be afforded rights no one else has?

#20 | Posted by et_al at 2019-10-17 11:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

C'mon, man. RoC and the Fox News chick say this is all BS.... not at all impeachable.

Who could argue with that kind of intellectual firepower?

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2019-10-17 11:27 PM | Reply

no different than any other accused facing a grand jury.

Yes it is, its some of the jury doing the investigation without presence of others.

Bypassing due process safeguards makes a reasonable person question the legitimacy of this "impeachment process".

Do you think the Buffoon should be afforded rights no one else has?

Federal officials are afforded rights no one else has...

Federal officials under impeachment investigation have also been afforded the right to counsel and the hearings were generally public.

Federal officials under impeachment investigation have also been afforded the right to counsel and the hearings were generally public.
The Judiciary Committee's impeachment rules grant majority and minority staff equal time for questioning witnesses and allows the chair of the committee to solicit the White House counsel's response to evidence.
The committee's rules also call for consultation with the ranking member before subpoenas are issued.
www.lawfareblog.com

Do you think a majority party in congress should be allowed to bypass due process safeguards just because they don't like the President?

#22 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-17 11:35 PM | Reply

"C'mon, man. RoC and the Fox News chick say this is all BS.... not at all impeachable.
Who could argue with that kind of intellectual firepower?
#21 | POSTED BY CORKY "

If you had any intellectual firepower, you would attack the story, not the source.

Are you up to it, corky, or not?

#23 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-17 11:43 PM | Reply

Yes it is, its some of the jury doing the investigation without presence of others.

The jury doesn't do the investigating, ever.

Nice swing and a miss.

Bypassing due process safeguards makes a reasonable person question the legitimacy of this "impeachment process".

What safeguards are being bypassed? The investigated are never part of the investigation.

And your lawfare blog link clearly shows the GOP members of the committee will have their chance.

BTW isn't lawfare a front for the deep state to push for the ouster of DOTUS because they're still upset Hillary lost?

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-17 11:50 PM | Reply

#22

I'm watching the Astros. I'll read it later.

#25 | Posted by et_al at 2019-10-17 11:55 PM | Reply

They are hiding their "witnesses" and the names change every day. More come out and then vanish? No cop on Earth would take tthis to a judge.

Err... no, the witness schedule is published in advance. Every single non-public hearing is attended by the Republicans on the respective committees. They are given the same amount of time to question witnesses as are the Democrats. It's just done behind closed doors so that each witness does not know exactly what the other witnesses have said so they cannot coordinate stories. Just like grand juries do every day.

Once it's no longer necessary, the transcripts of the hearings/depositions will be made public with needed redactions to protect secrets. At that time everyone can read it for their own and make up their own minds without influence of anyone should they want to.

Frankly, this is fairer to the subject of the investigation since both party's committee members aren't allowed to speak publicly about details and observations beyond very general points except when a witness makes an opening statement which is given to the public.

Impeachment has nothing to do with criminal standards, the Constitution says nothing close to that. Read the Federalist Papers or peruse some of the Colonial debate over Impeachment that occured as our Founders wrestled with the language of the Constitution.

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-18 12:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#22 from your link:

The precise way in which the House proceeds to impeachment is not dictated by the Constitution. As our colleague David Priess wrote, the House of Representatives voted on Feb. 24, 1868, to impeach President Johnson without an investigation and without even debating specific articles of impeachment. It was only after the impeachment vote that a committee was appointed to draft a set of precise articles and return them to the full House.

On the legal side, courts generally defer to Congress on how it organizes itself and its work.

The overriding point is that the Executive Branch has no sayso whatsoever over how the House does its role in impeachment. And since the GOP changed the rules in 2015, the subpoena powers that required votes before are already empowered to the relevant committees without any deference other than notification required to be given to the minority.

There have been multiple threads about the rule changes and their effect on the House progression of the impeachment process.

#27 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-18 12:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do you think a majority party in congress should be allowed to bypass due process safeguards just because they don't like the President?
#22 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Back to the Juice Box up 3-1.

No. I don't think anyone should be denied due process if, as and when it is due. Having followed the Lawfare link to the actual rules, I think the Buffoon is given more due process rights than any other accused before a grand jury.

Here's a link to the rules. judiciaryforms.house.gov It's five pages, large font, easy read. To get to the nut cuttin', past the preamble, skip to page four, the powers granted.

Grants one through three address the secrecy concerns. Grant four affords the Buffoon more due process than any one else before a grand jury.

#28 | Posted by et_al at 2019-10-18 01:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Helimrat- you need to take all your pills everyday

Tona and et al have both explained the process completely.. nobodys rights are being violated.
The fact that the you still don't get it seems like willful ignorance to me

And how can you feel silenced after all the nonsense UFO crap you have posted just on the retort...having your opinion mocked is not the same as being silenced your rights are not being abused either.

#29 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-10-18 04:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Do you think a majority party in congress should be allowed to bypass due process safeguards just because they don't like the President?
#22 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS"

Learn about the process of impeachment, the impeachment process is basically a grand jury and the defendant gets the same rights in a grand jury as the President has in an impeachment hearing. His rights to self-defense, etc. will be entirely respected in the "trial" in the Senate. What you are doing Andrea is just repeating propaganda talking points put out by the administration which are untrue and totally b.s. I suspect you actually already know that so what you are really doing is attempting to spread the propaganda to morons who don't know better.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-18 10:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Today Mick Mulvaney blamed the media for reporting the words he said.

#31 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-10-18 11:43 AM | Reply

What's funny is watching the right wing meltdown over the process and rules THEY CREATED when they had the majority.

It's delicious.

#32 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-10-18 11:46 AM | Reply

It's delicious.

#32 | Posted by Nixon

No, it's dangerous.

We have about 30% of our electorate who will believe anything fed to them to such an extent that a life long conman is simply a misunderstood genius who's being punished by people who don't like him because he's such a genius.

That is literally the bedrock of every current defense of Trump.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-18 12:39 PM | Reply

For the love of God anyone can read the transcript of the phone call.

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat

First off, the so-called 'transcript' of Trump's call to the Ukrainian president released by the White House is NOT a transcript. It's partial compilation of notes and recollections of the people who were on the call. Now if there IS a "word-for-word, comma-by-comma" transcript, as Trump has claimed that this one is, despite the White House's disclaimer that it isn't, then please release it!

And so that we all understand this, here is the disclaimer from the White House document (notice that in the very first sentence, it states that this is NOT a transcript):

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation, The word "inaudible" is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

Now getting back to your request that we read the 'transcript' because it appears that you believe that there was NO request that the Ukrainians investigate a potential political opponent of the president's. Well, what do you call it when Trump said this (in case you missed this when you supposedly read the document, you'll find it in the first paragraph on page four):

The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

OK, now that we've all read the relevant passage from the so-called 'transcript' please explain how this was NOT an attempt by the President of the United States of America to get 'dirt' on one of his potential political opponents in the upcoming 2020 elections. If Obama had been shown to have tried something like this in 2011, attempting to get 'dirt' on Mitt Romney during a telephone call to say the President of France, what would your opinion have been back then? I mention France, because after all, Romney did his LDS missionary assignment in France and it would be interesting to learn what sort of behavior he may have participated in while there. Who knows, he might have even drank a glass of wine. Now that would have really been something if the Obama campaign had been able to get something like that on Romney.

OCU

#34 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-10-18 12:40 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort