1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[WSJ] Editorial Board: The Ukraine Transcript Fizzle

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Sep 25, 2019.

Page 1 of 3
  1. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,502
    Likes Received:
    121,913
    The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board tonight. Probably a more accurate reflection of how this is likely to play out in the hinterlands than from what you'll find in all the Usual Sources.

    The Ukraine Transcript Fizzle
    The phone call evidence isn’t enough to annul a presidential election.
    By
    The Editorial Board
    Sept. 25, 2019 7:48 pm ET

    The White House on Wednesday released the transcript of President Trump’s July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and the news is that Mr. Trump was telling the truth about it. The conversation was largely routine diplomacy, and even the reference to Joe Biden was less than promoted by the press. Good luck persuading Americans that this is an impeachable offense.

    The five-page transcript shows that Mr. Trump called to congratulate Mr. Zelensky on his party’s victory in Parliament. After niceties, Mr. Trump waxes on as he often does that the U.S. “spend a lot of effort and a lot of time” on Ukraine, while complaining that European countries don’t do their share. At no point does Mr. Trump threaten a withdrawal of U.S. aid to Ukraine.

    Mr. Trump does ask for a “favor”—that Ukraine look at 2016 election meddling. “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike,” he says, referring to the company that investigated the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee.

    He also disparages former Special Counsel Robert Mueller—no surprise there—and notes that “they say a lot of it started with Ukraine.” Mr. Trump is clearly still sore about the attempt by the Hillary Clinton campaign to dig up foreign dirt on him, but there is nothing wrong with asking a foreign head of state to investigate meddling in U.S. elections.

    Only after that does Mr. Zelensky mention Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who has been publicly urging the Ukrainians to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s activities in Ukraine. Mr. Zelensky says he is “hoping very much” that the former New York mayor comes to Ukraine. He promises that all “investigations will be done openly and candidly.”

    Mr. Trump responds, “Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair.” After some praise for Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Trump adds that “there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution” of corruption in Ukraine. Mr. Trump also says that he intends to get Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to call, and he asks that Mr. Zelensky work with them.

    That’s it. No quid pro quo. The references to the Bidens are in the context of fighting corruption, not as a prerequisite of U.S. aid. Mr. Trump was unwise to mention Mr. Biden, but the tenor of the conversation is congenial. It’s amusing to hear the same critics who call Mr. Trump an oafish thug on a daily basis now say this was all a subtle masterpiece of extortion. When is Mr. Trump ever subtle?

    Democrats are making much of Mr. Trump’s references to Attorney General Barr, which were also imprudent in the Biden context. But the Justice Department says nothing came of it, that Mr. Trump never asked Mr. Barr to make that call, and Mr. Barr has never communicated with Ukraine, or with Mr. Giuliani about Ukraine.

    Mr. Trump certainly was reckless to use the former New York mayor as an anti-corruption envoy, or for anything else. Rudy is an unguided missile on TV and can’t be much better in private. The Justice and State Departments have plenty of people who can work with Ukraine on corruption.

    Keep in mind that all of this came to public attention because of a leak about a whistleblower complaint from the intelligence bureaucracy. The accusation is that Mr. Trump somehow attempted to cover this up, but it looks on the evidence released Wednesday that the Administration acted by the book.

    The complaint went to the intelligence community inspector general, who found it credible and deserving of submission to Congress under the whistleblower statute. But the director of national intelligence general counsel rightly sought legal guidance from the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, which is the authority on executive branch legal obligations.

    The White House on Wednesday released OLC’s legal opinion that the inspector general was wrong because Mr. Trump is not a member of the intelligence community and that a “routine diplomatic call” does not count as “intelligence activity.”

    Meanwhile, Justice says its Criminal Division evaluated the IG’s August referral that the phone conversation could be a violation of federal campaign finance law. A Justice Department statement said the Criminal Division determined there was no “violation” and that “all relevant components of the Department agreed with this legal conclusion.” In other words, no laws were broken. The IG will testify to Congress, so we can compare his case to the Justice Department’s.

    ***
    If Democrats want to pursue impeachment on this thin gruel, then Americans should also consider the process by which this became a national political crisis. First a whistleblower who is still unidentified brings a complaint based on what he heard about a President’s phone call. By the way, the OLC memo says in passing that the IG’s review acknowledges “some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate.”

    Then the IG makes a flawed legal judgment that Congress must see the complaint. When his argument is rebutted, word leaks to the press, Congress cries coverup, and suddenly we are putting the country through another impeachment upheaval.

    Is anyone else troubled that this is all it takes to impeach a President? If a bureaucrat who dislikes a President can trigger a complaint based on hearsay that forces the disclosure of presidential diplomacy, the conduct of foreign policy will be severely hampered. Democratic Presidents won’t be spared once Republicans figure out how this works.

    Mr. Trump’s refusal to abide by the normal guardrails of presidential decorum is often offensive. It can also be risky—for himself and U.S. interests. We have often criticized him for it. But impeaching a President is voting to annul an election, and that should require far more evidence than we have from this Ukraine phone call.

    Democrats may not be able to stop themselves now that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has joined the impeachment parade. But the voters should ask if impeachment on these terms will do far more harm to American democracy than Mr. Trump’s bad judgment.
    ​
     
    #1 Os Trigonum, Sep 25, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2019
    cml750, TheresTheDagger and Silent_Bob like this.
  2. Astrodome

    Astrodome Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    13,019
    Likes Received:
    14,986
    Very tenacious group, those dems. You have to wish them luck and applaud their optimism.
     
    #2 Astrodome, Sep 25, 2019
  3. JayGoogle

    JayGoogle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    52,313
    Likes Received:
    45,174
    Once again, no quid pro quo is needed, it's against the law to even solicit help, which Trump has already admitted to doing.

    The only people that think it is nothing are those that want it to be nothing. Sasse, who has seen the complaint, is warning yall to not circle the wagon.
     
    #3 JayGoogle, Sep 25, 2019
    Rocket River, FranchiseBlade, joshuaao and 2 others like this.
  4. Amiga

    Amiga Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    25,116
    Likes Received:
    23,394
    It wasn’t a transcript
     
    #4 Amiga, Sep 25, 2019
    Nook, FranchiseBlade, joshuaao and 4 others like this.
  5. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,051
    Here comes the Trumpanzee media to tell us not to believe our lying eyes again.
     
    #5 CometsWin, Sep 25, 2019
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  6. Amiga

    Amiga Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    25,116
    Likes Received:
    23,394
    Even with the released weather map...

    You can argue it’s was right there

    Definitely it’s implied

    And yes, simply asking is an abuse of power that’s impeachable
     
    #6 Amiga, Sep 25, 2019
    RayRay10 and adoo like this.
  7. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,853
    Likes Received:
    41,361
    You can't blame @Os Trigonum for trying to Keep hope alive

    Jimbo McFalsifier is on the case - get ready for a steady stream of shitposts to muddy the waters.

    It's a good hobby for a fat old white guy.
     
    #7 SamFisher, Sep 25, 2019
    peleincubus, RayRay10, tmoney1101 and 1 other person like this.
  8. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    25,743
    Likes Received:
    22,516
    You just can’t reason with people who believe up is down and black is white.

    You have in writing the President of Ukraine saying he’d like to purchase more military equipment to protect against Russian aggression and then literally the response from Trump is-

    “I need to ask a favor though”....

    ... proceeds to ask to investigate Biden etc.

    It’s insanely corrupt and clearly impeachable. Trump said it best that he could shoot someone and people like Astrodome and Os Trig would still support him because he knows that his supporters see his actions as justified in the fight to save their culture from Democrats. It should surprise no one that such an obvious impeachable act is a problem with the Democrats to people who clearly have drank the cool aid.

    Astrodome, Os, Mick, etc support the president BECAUSE he is willing to abuse his his power and break laws in order to hurt the Democrats because in their world being a Democrat or holding liberal beliefs is an existential threat that is worth breaking the law to keep from growing and encroaching on their world any further.

    Thats the simple truth here. The WSJ editorial, FoxNews etc know their readers and watchers think this and that’s why they profit off of their sad worldview that liberalism is such an existential threat that they wouid applaud a president that is willing to even break the law to protect their culture.
     
    #8 dobro1229, Sep 25, 2019
    Rashmon, FranchiseBlade, joshuaao and 5 others like this.
  9. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,791
    Likes Received:
    41,228
    You are sad to see down here. I'm perplexed at the excuses you and those like you make for Mr trump. Not that you do much more than cut and paste the opinions of others, but it still perplexes me. It's like you are blind, deaf, and dumb when it comes to politics. With all due respect. The "man" lies right in your face and you don't see it. Remarkable..
     
    #9 Deckard, Sep 25, 2019
    Hakeemtheking likes this.
  10. JayGoogle

    JayGoogle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    52,313
    Likes Received:
    45,174
    Oh, definitely implied, and as I mentioned before and advisor to Zelensky is saying that "It was clear that Trump will only have communications if they will discuss the Biden case. This issue was raised many times. I know that Ukrainian officials understood."

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ukr...dition-trump-zelensky-phone/story?id=65863043

    I think we will get more concrete evidence of this but it is important to stress that Trump already admitted to a crime. They are going to try to stick with "No Quid Pro Quo, it must be explicitly said!" and that's why I start with him already committing the crime.

    I love how this article though final conclusion is basically "Well! What can you do! Just Trump being Trump! He doesn't follow any decorum (or laws apparently) it's just bad judgement!"
     
    #10 JayGoogle, Sep 25, 2019
  11. Newlin

    Newlin Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    Messages:
    8,824
    Likes Received:
    11,242
    Isn't the WSJ and Fox News owned by the same company?
     
    #11 Newlin, Sep 25, 2019
    No Worries and DaDakota like this.
  12. JayGoogle

    JayGoogle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    52,313
    Likes Received:
    45,174
    They received the same talking points email it looks like.
     
    #12 JayGoogle, Sep 25, 2019
    Ubiquitin and RayRay10 like this.
  13. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    The WSJ editorial board can say whatever they want but it was their journalism department that broke this story. I didn't put any stock in this transcript, and no one should've done so in the first place. I will take the WSJ journalist research into this over a rehash document written by Administration staffers.
     
    #13 rocketsjudoka, Sep 25, 2019
    dmoneybangbang, Nook, FranchiseBlade and 3 others like this.
  14. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    Again this is very simple. Trump admitted he withheld aid from the Ukraine. Trump admitted he asked for a "favor" form the Urkainian President when that President enquired about aid. This would be like saying if I had promised my neighbor they could use my mower but didn't follow through and then when he asked about it I asked him for a favor of getting me a donut from the neighborhood cafe that would rightly be seen as a quid pro quo. It's only the most facile reasoning that refuses to the see the obvious.
     
    #14 rocketsjudoka, Sep 25, 2019
    durvasa, Rashmon, Nook and 2 others like this.
  15. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    25,743
    Likes Received:
    22,516
     
    #15 dobro1229, Sep 25, 2019
    dmoneybangbang, Ubiquitin and B-Bob like this.
  16. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,853
    Likes Received:
    41,361
    Fizzle!

     
    #16 SamFisher, Sep 25, 2019
    Rashmon, FranchiseBlade and No Worries like this.
  17. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,985
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    WSJ reporting has never been more orthogonal to their editorials. It’s really amazing to watch.
     
    #17 B-Bob, Sep 25, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2019
    dmoneybangbang, FranchiseBlade and RayRay10 like this.
  18. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    55,682
    Likes Received:
    43,473
    Dear lord that article is cringe.

    "A masterpiece of extortion"?

    Really? Their editorial board seriously thinks that withholding military aid to Ukraine and a few days later calling the President of Ukraine, telling him how much the US has done for Ukraine while understanding that the Ukrainian President knows that Trump just recently froze aid promised to his country and then following it up with asking for a favor to investigate his political rival isn't on the nose and dumb?

    They think that contradicts the general public's notion that Trump is an idiot? They think that type of extortion is clever and contradicts the notion that Trump is a ****ing idiot? These guys passed college? Do they think their reading audience is that stupid?
     
    #18 fchowd0311, Sep 26, 2019
    Hakeemtheking and CometsWin like this.
  19. dachuda86

    dachuda86 Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Messages:
    16,325
    Likes Received:
    3,586
    The conversation where trump mentions a favor, which isn't always returned btw, was about buying missiles... not aid. Also there was a clear shift in the conversation to a separate issue and they weren't tied together in any meaningful way.

    A favor is not always asking for reciprocity and nor was it suggested. You can use your imagination, but that's just what you're doing. Imagining. Good luck in a court with that. It's not going to fly with the public at large as well. The explicit evidence just isn't there. I can see how one might imagine that, but it seems a bit of a stretch to act like this is a slam dunk when it's just not there in the transcript. I've read it multiple times and I've seen media outlets selectively paraphrasing it incorrectly and smashing parts together to mislead readers.

    This is a clear fizzle. This is just Russiagate 2.0. I expect to see a 500 page thread about this and no actual results until after reelection. These are Trumped up claims to cast a shadow of impeachment on him before the election because Russia was a dud and the dems need a new "scandal" to ride and cast a shadow over their political opponent.
     
    #19 dachuda86, Sep 26, 2019
    Silent_Bob likes this.
  20. calcium

    calcium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Messages:
    937
    Likes Received:
    102
    #20 calcium, Sep 26, 2019
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 3

Share This Page