With the conclusion of the Trump defense in his impeachment trial, the question arises as to which lie told by the defense is the worst?
Sean Hannity has been emphazing four in particular. In the first he claims that there was no linkage between military aid and investigating Bidens in the July 25 phone transcript. But there it is in black and white that when Zelensky mentioned wanting more military aid Trump immediately goes to "I need a favor though," with that immediately followed by his demand for inveatigating the supposedly missing laptop with mention of investigating Bidens coming a bit later.
Then we have the true claim that Zelensky has never publicly said he felt "pressure" from Trump. Indeed, but we know no way he would say so as long as he wants aid.
Then we have the claim that Zelensky knew nothing about this before the July 25 phone call. But in fact numerous witnesses have testified that he did and was fully aware of what was coming (more or less) when he participated in the July 25 phone call. This one is an outright lie.
We then finally get the argument that military aid was released even though Zelensky "did nothing that was asked" (ah, things were indeed asked after all). But we know this was after Trump knew the whistleblower complaint was being made public, and while Zelensky got his aid, he still has not gotten his promised White House visit.
However, I think the most egregious claims and the ones that I think resonate the most with Trump's supporters are those that this impeachment is to overturn the 2016 election ans also to "steal" the 2020 election, with "ballots being torn up across the country." On the first one if Trump were to be removed, he would be replaced by VP Pence, duly elected with Trump in 2016, not much of an overturn there.
As for the claims about 2020 the joke is that there is nothing in being impeached and removed that prevents the person removed from running again. This one is just an outright misleading lie. The further joke is that there are no ballots yet to be "torn up." Not only is the Dem candidated known yet, Trump himself has not yet been officially made the GOP candidate. Sure, he is a shoo-in to get the nomination, but he does actually have people running against him, most notably William Weld of MA, former governor there. It is true that in some states local GOP will not let Weld or others onto primary or caucus ballots, but many will allow them. In any case, there are no ballots to be "torn up" for the fall election, and if removed, Trump can still run. All the people getting outraged over this are just wildly misinformed and being lied to.
Barkley Rosser
Clearly and convincingly explained, but a problem I still have with this is why is the President to be compelled by Congress to supply weapons to any other country? I thought the President is supposed to conduct foreign relations, supposedly short of going to war. Was the President obligated by Congress to give weapons to Ukraine?
ReplyDeleteArticle 1, Section 3, Paragraph(?) 7:
ReplyDelete7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe president has authority to conduct US foreign policy, it is in the constitution. A fact the congress' GAO ignored when it concluded the holding of appropriated foreign aid might violate the appropriation bill.
As to aid for Ukraine: Menzie Chinn at econbrowser linked to a Congressional Research Service Sep 2019 Report on evolution and state of Ukraine conflict [what the impeachers called a grave danger] and US support to the government: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45008.pdf A short 40 page read.
At pg 31 you can see the amount of US military aid funding. Also there has been economic aid and loan guarantees, with normalized trade.
The congress strongly supports aiding the government in Kyiv. It appears far more than the president.
", and disqualification..." Not a lawyer but I read disqualification from future office as separable from removal. IOW, Judgment may, at most, consist of removal from office and disqualification from future office but it could consist of simply removal from office without subsequent disqualification.
ReplyDeleteOf course, when Trump's defense team talks about tearing up the ballots, they are talking about the ballots in the Electoral College. It was the Electoral College that effectively tore up the ballots of the actual voters.
ReplyDeleteOne small correction. I believe Trump actually said "I need you to do us a favor, though." Presumably the "us" referred to the Trump re-election team, or perhaps he was using the objective case of the "royal we."
For me the worst lie is this ongoing garbage about Joe Biden trying firing the Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect his son. Surely Trump's defense team knows that this is a complete fiction. They're not that dumb. I would concede that Trump might be stupid enough and gullible enough to believe any lie that Rudy feeds him, but surely Trump's lawyers know better.
That was the short list of the Trumpian lies. One could write an entire book on the many lies Team Trump has told the Senate.
ReplyDelete"The president has authority to conduct US foreign policy, it is in the constitution. A fact the congress' GAO ignored when it concluded the holding of appropriated foreign aid might violate the appropriation bill."
ReplyDeleteSM
I appreciate this. Congress has passed several bills dealing expressly with foreign relations lately, and the President has not used "signing statements" to my knowledge to limit the legislation as recent Presidents tended to do. So can Congress now determine foreign policy matters with regard, say, to Russia or China? Has a Marco Rubio become a foreign policy maker? After all, when Nancy Pelosi went to Syria a few years ago she was severely criticized for interfering in foreign policy.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe granting to the president of authority over both foreign policy and the military as commander-in-chief has limits in the Constitution. Conagress has the authority to declare war, not the president. Also Congress has control over funding of all these activities, so the power is not absolute. But there is more.
As it is, there is a lot more here specifically. Congress passed in the past, signed by a president, a law not ruled unconstitutional, called the Impoundment Control Act (ICA), which indeed sets specific standards for when a president can hold back, "impound," funds that have been authorized by Congress and signed off on by the president. These invole such things as possibly saving money or other special "contingencies," but specifically does not include for a "policy issue." The GAO is specifically put in charge of judging the legality or illegality of any such impoundments made by a president.
As it is, this military aid was supported by overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress ans was signed off on by President Trump himself. When Trump made thie impoundment never even publicly announced it or provided any justification for it. As commentators have noted, this was not even a close call for the GAO. The impoundment was illegal very clearly.
There is more and worse. While the point has not been made all that much by the House managers, it is illegal for anybody to solicit foreign assistance in an electoral campaign. But that is exactly what this was. More clear illegality.
Finally, this is also clearly bribery, mentioned as an impeachable offense in the Constitution. It remains a mystery to me why the House managers did not explicitly put this in the Articles, especially after Nancy Pelosi meentioned it.
Really, in the end this is pretty straightforward: guilty guilty guilty.
Thank you, Mr. Slackmeyer. That will be enough from you.
ReplyDeleteThe "trial" in the senate looks to me like 6 or 7 Martin Luthers debating Before a 100 person jury which one side has ridiculed.
ReplyDeleteWith no referee!
Which side is playing to credulous n=boomer rubes?
"The granting to the president of authority over both foreign policy and the military as commander-in-chief has limits in the Constitution. Congress has the authority to declare war, not the president. Also Congress has control over funding of all these activities, so the power is not absolute...."
ReplyDeleteI understand your argument far better now; thank you for this post.