How Stupid Do You Have to Be to Think Trump's Actions Aren't Impeachable?

I don't often call people stupid on social media. I make an exception for Donnie Two Scoops, the Dotard-in-Chief, but usually I attempt to keep it civil. But damn, how stupid are you people? I understand that you don't want to believe that your guy is guilty, I understand that you don't want to admit that the mess that the rest of us have been predicting as finally come to pass, I understand that admitting that you're wrong is difficult. I get it; but c'mon!

Take the time to actually read the transcripts of the witness testimony, listen to the testimony for 30 minutes or so, not just the sound bites. Think logically and rationally and look at the big picture. Put the pieces together. Rep. Jim Jordan and the rest of the Republicans don't want you to put it all together. They don't want you to see the pattern, they don't want you to see that the whole atmosphere was corrupted by a president who didn't care about foreign policy except how it personally benefited him.

The phone record of the July 25th call was bad enough. Despite Trump claiming that it was "perfect" we have a foreign leader obviously sucking up to Trump, praising him and claiming to have learned from his example. This is without question the leader of a smaller, weaker nation, a nation that needs the support of the United States, trying to get in the good graces of  a head of state who can help him against Russia. Just before Trump starts talking, Zelensky thanks Trump for selling Ukraine military equipment. Trump...now pay attention to what comes next...mentions how Ukraine hasn't done much to help the United States and asks that "you do us a favor though" and brings up (1) a debunked conspiracy theory about the DNC server (which isn't missing) being hidden in Ukraine and (2) asks that Ukraine open an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Zelensky then immediately agrees to do this. At the time, although not mentioned in the phone call, Trump was withholding Congressionally allocated military aid to Ukraine and was stalling on a White House visit by Zelensky. If it's not clear enough to you, Zelensky desperately needs the military aid to defend his country and desperately wants the White House visit to bolster his reputation and show Russia that Trump has his back. He is very much a little guy who needs something badly from the big guy. Trump also needs something. He had just heard that former Vice President Joe Biden was running for president in 2020 and most polls showed that he could beat Trump. Ukraine opening an investigation into Biden would almost certainly hurt him as the primaries approached. Before the investigations could start, Zelensky needed to appoint a new chief prosecutor. Two months go by...and the whistle-blower's complaint makes its way to Congress.

The Trumpublicans want you to believe that none of this matters because the investigations didn't happen, the aid was released and there hasn't been a White House meeting. Think! When was the aid released? Two days after Congress received the complaint. Why didn't the investigation happen? Zelensky hadn't appointed his new prosecutor yet. Why no White House meeting? Because no investigation had happened. After mid-September none of the things discussed in the phone call or behind the scenes came to pass...not because Trump hadn't asked for them or that Zelensky hadn't agreed to do Trump's bidding...but because they got caught!

If that wasn't enough, we've had a parade of witnesses from various corners of the diplomatic corps testifying that, at Trump's direction, ambassadors, envoys and sundry State Department personnel were coordinating with Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer to turn the State Department and diplomatic corps into an arm of the Trump campaign. Literally everyone who had any connection to Ukraine was aware of what was going on. Some went to their superiors and were told to shut up. Others tried in their own way to get things back on track. But everybody knew that the direction from the president was to put personal whims ahead of United States national interests.

Trumpublicans have been attempting to remove things out of their larger context. Witnesses who were several layers of bureaucracy removed from the White House were asked if they had ever spoken with the president. When they responded that they hadn't, the questioner acted as if it was a big "gotcha" that proved that there was nothing wrong going on. In addition to  the argument that since no investigation had taken place there was no "quid pro quo" (ignoring the fact that soliciting a bribe is the problem, and that problem doesn't disappear when the bribe doesn't materialize) they are now claiming that the witnesses are a bunch of un-elected bureaucrats who are trying to set foreign policy that is the purview of the president. While it is broadly true that the president is responsible for setting foreign policy, Congress is a partner in that responsibility. It is not true that a president can "do whatever he wants". He cannot turn government officials into his personal employees; they work for the United States government, they are not personal servants of the chief executive.

The various witnesses saw different parts of Trump's scheme. A few, like Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, were privy to Trump's thinking and his goals. Most were following orders that were passed down the chain of command. Just about all were disturbed at the role Giuliani played, sometimes working with the diplomats, sometimes without their knowledge, often at cross-purposes. More than a few of these witnesses, like Ambassador Sondland,  are Trump appointees (who he no says he "barely knows" and derides as not being true Trumpists), most are career diplomats who have served loyally in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Despite Gym Jordan's fast talking, yelling, interrupting and insulting witnesses (and reporters), despite Trump's tweets that it's a hoax, and that the Democrats are "human scum", out to get him, despite the "see no evil" stance of most Republicans, it is obvious that Trump abused the power of the office and engaged in what amounts to extortion and bribery. And if you refuse to see it, then I guess we know just how stupid you have to be to believe that Trump is innocent.

Throwing Bullshit Against the Wall to See What Sticks

Let's take a minute to look at some of the items that the Republicans, notably Jim Jordan, use to defend Trump in the impeachment inquiry.

The military aid was eventually released...BEFORE the deadline
The deadline in question is the end of the fiscal year, September 30th. Close to $400 in military aid was allocated by Congress in a budget approved by Trump. When Congressional leaders, including Republicans,  realized that a freeze had been put on the funds, they asked for an explanation from the administration, and received none. The funds were released two days after Congress was notified about the whistle-blower complaint.

The military aid was held up due to concerns about corruption in Ukraine
There have been concerns in the last few years about corruption in Ukraine. The military aid, however, had been approved after the Defense Department Undersecretary for Policy, in May 2019, certified that Ukraine had made progress toward eliminating corruption. No new information has come out about renewed concerns about Ukrainian corruption.

The military aid was held up and subsequently released, because we needed to "vet" the new president of Ukraine
Zelensky was elected in April. No explanation of what constituted this "vetting"

Investigations into the Bidens have not happened (yet)
In the infamous  July 25th phone call, Zelensky agreed to start an investigation after Trump asked him to "do us a favor though". Would an investigation, or at least a public announcement that such an investigation was happening, have begun if the whistle-blower complaint not made its way to Congress and subsequently been leaked to the public? Trump's position has been that it's his job to be concerned about rooting out corruption in countries who receive aid from us, and he believes that the Bidens were corrupt. Why is it no longer a priority for Ukraine to start an investigation? Wouldn't a refusal by Zelensky to look into this "corruption" indicate that Ukraine was still a hotbed of corruption? If it's not about scoring points against a political opponent, but a sincere desire to do the right thing, why are we backing off the demand that there be an investigation into the Bidens?

Numerous meetings took place between Zelensky & American officials without linking the aid to investigations
We don't really know what went on in those conversations, except the July 25th call, in which there is a clear implied linkage between aid and investigations. Ambassador Sondland has testified that on September 1st he clearly told Zelensky that aid would be forthcoming after Zelensky (or possibly the top prosecutor) made a public announcement about opening corruption investigations.

This line of defense seems to be that Ukraine got their money without any investigations, so nothing actually happened. The weak point in their argument is that the timing of the release of funds is suspicious. The funds were being held up for reasons that make little sense. Supposedly they were being held up because we thought Ukraine was corrupt, even though Trump's own administration certified that they had made enough progress regarding corruption that they could receive aid. What does make sense is that during this time period Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was fueling Trump's paranoia that Ukraine was out to get him, and pushing conspiracy theories that it was Ukraine, not Russia, who interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of not Trump, but Clinton. In the July phone call, Trump brings up the debunked theory that the DNC server, which was never "missing" was somewhere in Ukraine.

The "witnesses" are peddling nothing but second and third-hand information
Other than Lt. Col. Vindman. All the officials who have first-hand information about what Trump said or did are refusing to testify or are asking the courts to rule.

Trump's defenders hang their hats on narrow and literal statements and ignore the actions of Giuliani that are taking place outside of official channels during these official meetings. Most of the statements and actions by Trump and his subordinates can be explained away, but only if you take them in isolation, instead of as a web, a pattern, that clearly points to a president who formed his opinion about Ukraine based on debunked, tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories, and attempted to use his position to advance his personal, political aims

Day One of Impeachment Public Hearings

In Day One of public testimony in the impeachment inquiry, the interim ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor and another high ranking diplomat, George Kent, talked about the efforts by EU Ambassador Sondland and Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to push Ukrainian President Zelensky to open an investigation into Joe & Hunter Biden, or at least publicly announce that he was doing so. Their testimony showed how this inquiry is about much more than the literal words in one phone call, but involves a web of carrot-and-stick pressure tactics. The lever that was being used to discredit Vice President Biden was not just the military aid package, but Zelensky's desire for a White House meeting with Trump. One part of Taylor's testimony that I found particularly revealing was that while he was trying to get the frozen military aid released, the National Security Council was caught up with Trump's efforts to buy Greenland! Neither Taylor nor Kent are claiming to have spoken directly to Trump about what was happening in Ukraine, nor were they expected to provide legal analysis regarding whether Trump's actions were impeachable.

Republicans, as was expected, did not address the facts of the case. They made a great show of asking the witnesses if they were "on the call", which they weren't, which is also irrelevant. (For all the Republican focus on "second and third-hand testimony, you'd think that all those closest to Trump would be tripping over themselves to testify, instead of refusing to testify, or asking the courts to intervene) They were asked whether anything in the phone call was impeachable. They did not answer, as this is not their area of expertise and not the purpose of their testimony. They assailed the patriotism of the witnesses and accused them of being "deep state" operatives out to get Trump, even though Taylor was recruited by the Trump administration to come out of retirement and take the Ukraine posting after the former ambassador was fired for "disloyalty".

Another Republican strategy is to point out that the aid to Ukraine was eventually released, neglecting to mention that it was released only after Congress threatened to take action to release it on their own. Repeated calls for the whistle-blower to testify are also a featured part of the Republicans "strategy".

So far it's evident that the impeachable offense is not merely a phone call where the intent can be (implausibly) explained away, a conversation that exists in some kind of vacuum, but a series of actions by Trump and those loyal to him, make it clear that this more than just the phone call, but an extended effort to solicit foreign help to influence a U.S. election.

Real Americans

Something that you see a lot during times of political polarization or unrest are claims about what a "real" American is, does, believes, stands for. All sides engage is this rhetoric, but my observation is that the right wing pushes it harder. The idea that some of us aren't true Americans.

The truth is that America isn't just one thing, we're the left and the right, the good and the bad.

As a native New Yorker who has lived most of my adult life in Nebraska, I encounter this mindset manifesting a a belief that middle Americans are more authentic than "the coastal elites", and that Californians and New Yorkers are somehow less American than Nebraskans. Most of the time people don't realize that I'm a New Yorker, since after almost 40 years in Nebraska my accent has faded. But I found it profoundly insulting that when Bob Kerrey ran for the Senate seat that was eventually won by Deb Fischer, his time in New York was put forth as prima facie evidence that he was unfit to represent Nebraskans. Kerrey, who was born and raised in Nebraska, served in the Navy SEALs (and it always seems that you can't criticize a veteran unless it's a Democrat), started a business, and served the state as a Governor and Senator, was somehow tainted because he took a job in New York. (One of the reasons I so dislike Dan Whitney aka Larry the Cable Guy is his support of Fischer in 2012, promoting the "Kerrey is a New Yorker and therefore bad" story line)

After the last election, since Clinton support tended to be concentrated more in coastal urban centers than in central rural states, Clinton voters were derided as not real Americans. Football players who take a knee are called not real Americans. Trans people and their supporters are told that they're not real Americans. Democrats and liberals not only aren't real Americans, but hate America and are trying to destroy it according to the right wing. Anyone who opposes Trump hates America. According to Trump and his supporters real Americans live in middle America, not the coasts, they stand for the anthem, believe in "traditional" marriage, are Republicans, and most importunately, support Trump.

There is no "the American people".

So Much Information

Once upon a time "doing your research" was a lot more difficult than it is today. A politician would make a claim, and unless you had personal knowledge of what was claimed, verifying or debunking the claim would take a lot of work. In 2019, however, there's a plethora of information at our fingertips through the magic of Google searches. Unfortunately, a lot of that information is unreliable.

Before Trump co-opted the term, "fake news" referred to information that was deliberately misleading or outright false, presented as real news. Websites were set up exclusively to deceive people, sometimes controlled by Russian Intelligence. These sites still exist and continue to churn out misinformation. Then there are sources that present opinion as facts. It's easy to look at incomplete information and come to a conclusion, then present that conclusion as factual. Oftentimes alternate explanations exist and are ignored.  Major news organizations, in addition to presenting the news, i.e. factual information, devote a large amount of their energy to delivering opinion, commentary, punditry and the like. Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow, to give examples on the right and the left, are prominent examples.

But doing an internet search until you find an opinion that you agree with isn't "doing your research", parroting what your favorite talking head says happened isn't either. It's not true just because Fox News or the New York Times says so.

Fortunately, much of what politicians claim can be independently checked.

A great example occurred this morning. Trump and his sycophants have taken to Twitter to let us know that he received an enthusiastic welcome at a college football game this weekend, and to complain that the "fake news media" wasn't covering it. You may recall that he received a less-than-warm welcome during a World Series game recently, the booing overwhelming any pockets of cheers in the stadium. He also experienced a mixed reception at a UFC bout in New York. But the cheers outnumbered the boos at Saturday's football game. How do I know? I know because, despite the whining about lack of coverage of the enthusiastic greeting, five seconds on Google yielded coverage of the overwhelming cheering for Trump by CNN, USA Today, the Washington Post, CBS and the New York Times. Another five seconds likely would have produced more examples. My point is, that despite all the griping that you wouldn't see coverage of public support for Trump in the mainstream media, a quick check showed ample coverage of public support for Trump in the mainstream media. Yet many Trump supporters won't check the facts for themselves, but will believe unquestioningly what their cult leader says.

Many of Trump's claims can be checked out pretty easily, not by depending on the mainstream media, or the Democrats, but by simply referring to what Trump himself said earlier, either in a tweet or a news conference. many of the figures that he cites can easily be checked using statistics published by the government (the same government of which he is the titular leader).

Which brings us to a timely and arguably much more important group of claims. Trump and his supporters have been inviting us to "read the transcript" (which isn't really a transcript, but a reconstruction based on contemporaneous notes, so I usually call it a "transcript" - in quotes) and has made claims based on what is in the "transcript" and the whistle-blower's complaint, as if what is in these two documents exonerate him. To a certain extent this works. As usual, his supporters don't "do the research" and repeat back what their master tells them.

Read the Complaint, Read the Transcript

Trump called Ukrainian President Zelensky; immediately after Zelensky referred to American military aid, Trump said "I want you to do me a favor though" and asked him to investigate former Vice-President Biden and his son Hunter. At the time Trump had put a hold on Congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine.

None of these facts are in serious dispute. 

We found out about the phone call due to a whistle-blower who had heard about this phone call from several officials who were listening in as part of their jobs. Subsequently the White House released a reconstructed transcript from notes taken by those who were listening in. The document released by the White House did not in any way contradict the substance of the whistle-blower's complaint. 

Trump, as well as some of his supporters allege that the complaint was wrong and that it did not agree with the document released by the White House.  He continues to say this, even though both documents are publicly available and do not contradict each other. Read them yourself.

Rep. Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, read what he claimed was a parody of the White House document, where he added words that Trump did not say. Despite Schiff making clear that he was not reading the document verbatim, Trump and his supporters claim that the entire impeachment inquiry is based on Schiff's version. It is not. Trump is also claiming that the "transcript" was released after Schiff's bit of bad judgement and "set the record straight". It was not. Schiff had the "transcript" in his hands and it was publicly available before that. No one, including Schiff,  is claiming that Schiff's version is the correct version, or anything other than theatrical exaggeration. 

Trump and his supporters continually call for the whistle-blower's identity, despite the fact that federal law protects his identity if he wants to stay anonymous. 

At least one person who was actually listening in on the call has verified both the whistle-blower's complaint, adding that several things, including specific references to Burisma,  were left out. Top State Department officials confirm that, other than the phone call, there was an effort by Rudy Giuliani, at Trump's request, to push for an investigation into the Bidens. Rudy Giuliani holds no government post, but is merely Trump's personal lawyer. 

Trump and his supports can't seem to make up their minds about the quid pro quo aspect. One day it's "there was no quid pro quo", another day "there was a quid pro quo, but that's business as usual". 

The main defense from Republicans seems to be about process, rather than determining whether the allegations are true (which seems beyond argument) and whether the actions are impeachable.  

After the Mueller Report came out, Trump and his sycophantic supporters hung their hats on the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that there was coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, and the available evidence was insufficient for charges of conspiracy. Now we have an admission that Trump himself colluded with a foreign head of state to take action that had no clear objective other than tarring a political opponent. 

There doesn't seem to be any other option other than impeachment. 

There are Lies...and Then There Are More Lies

There are lies and there are exaggerations. There are lies and there is being misinformed. There are lies and there are misstatements. There are lies and there are differences of opinion.

In the Trump administration there are mostly lies, and I'm glad to see that the major media organizations are finally calling his lies what they are: lies. Not misstatements, not errors, lies.

Of course, sometimes they are misstatements, especially when he's on a roll at a rally. It's easy to make an error in that kind of situation. The one time that I can recall a similar error by our previous president was when he referred to "57 states" when he was talking about the 47 states he had visited. Obviously just a slip of the tongue, just as I'm (relatively) sure that Trump understands that Colorado doesn't share a border with Mexico. But with Trump it goes beyond gaffes, it goes beyond misstatements or even exaggeration, he lies about things that can be easily fact checked, sometimes about things that are right in front of us.

Daniel Dale of CNN, famous for documenting Trump's thousands of lies and for popularizing the "sir alerts", use of the word "sir" that often precede a suspect Trump story, related a recurring Trump lie this week. Trump often stirs upon animosity toward the media during his rallies, sometimes accusing them of turning off the cameras during his speech. He couples this with his "observation" that he can see "the red light go off". Except that not only are they not turning off there cameras, but there is no red light. He's lying about something that is happening right in front of us, but that doesn't stop him. Frequently during White House photo ops, usually when he is signing some ultimately meaningless executive order, he has some human props behind him, like uniformed police or construction workers in hard hats. On several occasions he has referred to these men as crying, or in tears, happy that someone was finally doing something for them. Except that video of these events always show stoic faces, or sometimes smiling faces, but never, ever, people crying.

And then there's the recurring story of how he "got" choice for veterans. According to him "they" have been trying for 10 or 15 years (the number is inconsistent) but he finally got it done, because he loves the military. Except that the Veterans' Choice law, co-sponsored by Senators Bernie Sanders and John McCain, was signed into law in 2014 by President Barack Obama.

What's my point? My point is that with so many documented, lies, so many lies out in the open, so many lies about things that can be checked with a 20-second Google search, why would anyone believe anything he says about the things that we can't check?