3 ms·

This call itself does not seem remotely damning. I don't see how there could be a 'whistle blower' for this specific event. There was a couple of references to

by jariel 7y ago

This call itself does not seem remotely damning. I don't see how there could be a 'whistle blower' for this specific event. There was a couple of references to 'Giuliani' who was acting in Trump's personal interest, and so there's more to the story there as we now know - but I don't see how this call itself would generate the scrutiny we've seen. I'd be interested in knowing how this call unfolded into an investigation.

jezclaremurugan 7y ago
"I would like you to do a favor though.." - right when the congress approved aid was blocked seems damning. Context is everything.
- sasasassy 7y ago
  But he's referring to "us" and the country, not even a favor to him personally. And Biden's son is only mentioned in a later paragraph. I think it really depends on how it was said in the call, it's difficult to say for sure if he was just going off a bullet point list of concerns with Ukraine, or had his mind set all that time on attacking Biden. I guess we'll never know for sure, wouldn't be at all surprised if that was the intention though. Edit: Also about the aid approval. I think the approval happened shortly after the call became public, not after some action was made against Biden's son, so it may be a case of "dammed if you do, damned if you don't".
  - jariel 7y ago
    The approval went through because the Trump team realised they were in trouble. The approval shouldn't have been held up in any case, the fact there's evidence Trump etc. tried to hold up the weapons is the most damning thing. I don't think this is dammed do/don't scenario.
    - sasasassy 7y ago
      Maybe, but the call does not mention holding up funds, so we don't really know. It's suspicious, but we don't know.
      - jariel 7y ago
        Yes, we know for sure. Immediately after the call, the White House directed the Pentagon to hold up funds. There are plenty of witnesses to this effect. The call itself is not damning, but there's clear evidence that Trump tried to hold up military support. Now, how illegal or immoral that is, is a separate question entirely as well.
koprulusector 7y ago
If that is so, why was it classified at the highest level, code name system with only a handful of people in the White House with sufficient clearance to see or access it? How many times does he say he’s going to have his personal attorney, representing private citizen trump, call the president of Ukraine, along with the Attorney General of the US, representing America (and trump) to discuss opening an investigation into a political rival? While simultaneously withholding congressionally appropriated aide meant for a strategic ally who’s at war with Russia, literally the country that was in a Cold War with us for 40+ years. And to make the timing even better, it happens right after the special counsel investigation and report into election meddling that culminated in Trump campaign leadership criminal convictions and prison time, with 20+ indictments of Russian nationals (GRU) in addition. So we just finished a saga of election interference from a foreign power, and he has this call. Nah, nothing to see here, folks...
- rayiner 7y ago
  > that is so, why was it classified at the highest level, code name system with only a handful of people in the White House with sufficient clearance to see or access it? Because the very first thing is discussing planned defense procurement? > How many times does he say he’s going to have his personal attorney, representing private citizen trump, call the president of Ukraine, along with the Attorney General of the US, representing America (and trump) to discuss opening an investigation into a political rival? Hold on. Most of the discussion (the part after “favor”) concerns whether the Mueller investigation was rooted in faulty information from the Ukraine. This is my first time reading the transcript, but it looks like he doesn’t mention Biden until the end. It’s not quite “in passing,” but the focus of the “favor” is clearly on investigating Ukrainian information on which the Mueller investigation was based (which is the subject of an ongoing DOJ investigation). > And to make the timing even better, it happens right after the special counsel investigation and report into election meddling that culminated in Trump campaign leadership criminal convictions and prison time, with 20+ indictments of Russian nationals (GRU) in addition. The Mueller investigation failed to turn up anything significant. Almost all those convictions were for lying to investigators. For a federal prosecutor, securing those kinds of convictions is child’s play, because people reflexively lie when questioned about these sorts of things. (This is why obstruction shouldn’t be chargeable as a stand-alone crime, but that’s a separate rant.) Charging obstruction and Section 1001 is what federal prosecutors do to save face when an investigation hasn’t turned up what it sought to turn up. (I should note that while suddenly people are big fans of convicting people not for what they did, but lying during the investigation, pre-Trump there was a bi-partisan view among criminal justice reformers that obstruction charges like 18 USC 1001 are abused: https://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2012/04/18/what-the-wall-street-journal-missed-about-false-statements-made-to-the-fbi/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2012/04/18/wh...)

by jariel 7y ago

jezclaremurugan 7y ago

"I would like you to do a favor though.." - right when the congress approved aid was blocked seems damning. Context is everything.

sasasassy 7y ago
But he's referring to "us" and the country, not even a favor to him personally. And Biden's son is only mentioned in a later paragraph. I think it really depends on how it was said in the call, it's difficult to say for sure if he was just going off a bullet point list of concerns with Ukraine, or had his mind set all that time on attacking Biden. I guess we'll never know for sure, wouldn't be at all surprised if that was the intention though. Edit: Also about the aid approval. I think the approval happened shortly after the call became public, not after some action was made against Biden's son, so it may be a case of "dammed if you do, damned if you don't".
- jariel 7y ago
  The approval went through because the Trump team realised they were in trouble. The approval shouldn't have been held up in any case, the fact there's evidence Trump etc. tried to hold up the weapons is the most damning thing. I don't think this is dammed do/don't scenario.
  - sasasassy 7y ago
    Maybe, but the call does not mention holding up funds, so we don't really know. It's suspicious, but we don't know.
    - jariel 7y ago
      Yes, we know for sure. Immediately after the call, the White House directed the Pentagon to hold up funds. There are plenty of witnesses to this effect. The call itself is not damning, but there's clear evidence that Trump tried to hold up military support. Now, how illegal or immoral that is, is a separate question entirely as well.

koprulusector 7y ago

If that is so, why was it classified at the highest level, code name system with only a handful of people in the White House with sufficient clearance to see or access it? How many times does he say he’s going to have his personal attorney, representing private citizen trump, call the president of Ukraine, along with the Attorney General of the US, representing America (and trump) to discuss opening an investigation into a political rival? While simultaneously withholding congressionally appropriated aide meant for a strategic ally who’s at war with Russia, literally the country that was in a Cold War with us for 40+ years. And to make the timing even better, it happens right after the special counsel investigation and report into election meddling that culminated in Trump campaign leadership criminal convictions and prison time, with 20+ indictments of Russian nationals (GRU) in addition. So we just finished a saga of election interference from a foreign power, and he has this call. Nah, nothing to see here, folks...

rayiner 7y ago
> that is so, why was it classified at the highest level, code name system with only a handful of people in the White House with sufficient clearance to see or access it? Because the very first thing is discussing planned defense procurement? > How many times does he say he’s going to have his personal attorney, representing private citizen trump, call the president of Ukraine, along with the Attorney General of the US, representing America (and trump) to discuss opening an investigation into a political rival? Hold on. Most of the discussion (the part after “favor”) concerns whether the Mueller investigation was rooted in faulty information from the Ukraine. This is my first time reading the transcript, but it looks like he doesn’t mention Biden until the end. It’s not quite “in passing,” but the focus of the “favor” is clearly on investigating Ukrainian information on which the Mueller investigation was based (which is the subject of an ongoing DOJ investigation). > And to make the timing even better, it happens right after the special counsel investigation and report into election meddling that culminated in Trump campaign leadership criminal convictions and prison time, with 20+ indictments of Russian nationals (GRU) in addition. The Mueller investigation failed to turn up anything significant. Almost all those convictions were for lying to investigators. For a federal prosecutor, securing those kinds of convictions is child’s play, because people reflexively lie when questioned about these sorts of things. (This is why obstruction shouldn’t be chargeable as a stand-alone crime, but that’s a separate rant.) Charging obstruction and Section 1001 is what federal prosecutors do to save face when an investigation hasn’t turned up what it sought to turn up. (I should note that while suddenly people are big fans of convicting people not for what they did, but lying during the investigation, pre-Trump there was a bi-partisan view among criminal justice reformers that obstruction charges like 18 USC 1001 are abused: https://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2012/04/18/what-the-wall-street-journal-missed-about-false-statements-made-to-the-fbi/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2012/04/18/wh...)